Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON BRIDGE BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Maud Report

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps, in advance of the publication of the Maud Report, to reorganise local government into larger units so that housing construction may be more economically organised.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend could not contemplate two general reorganisations of local government within a few years of each other.

Mrs. Short: But is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities, with the best will in the world, find themselves unable to press ahead with their housing programmes, especially when they want to use industrialised building systems and long runs are absolutely essential for this?

Would he look at this again with a view to setting up large regional housing corporations?

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend is well known for her efforts, particularly on industrialised building systems. I think that she is aware that the Government have done a great deal in bringing about consortia of local authorities. There is a vast number of them. I shall send her a detailed list. I think that she will be very impressed with what has been done already.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what effects the Rate Support Grant Order will have on rates in the financial year 1967–68; and if he will take steps to prevent rate increases during this period by providing a Government rate subsidy.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The rate support grant fixed by the Order is estimated to provide £40 million more in aid of rates in 1967–68 than would have been paid under the former system. Twenty-three million pounds of the extra grant for 1967–68 will secure for domestic ratepayers a reduction of 5d. in the rate which they would otherwise pay. The Government have already provided a subsidy and I do not have it in mind to propose any additional subsidy.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the main, rates will increase in the period 1967–68? Does not he think that this is highly undesirable in a period of prices and incomes standstill or restraint? Would he undertake to consider the possibility of giving a subsidy of this type to local authorities to enable them to expand services without increasing rates?

Mr. Greenwood: We are increasing subsidies on houses. The rate support grant gave an additional subsidy. I see no reason at the moment to change the legislation.

Mr. Ridsdale: While we do not want a subsidy, will the Minister recognise the need of seaside areas with a growing retired population and little industry? What the Minister said to me the last time he answered Questions was not true


—that the Government grant considerably covers the local rate; it does not, especially when the county rate is taken into consideration.

Mr. Greenwood: We discussed this when the Bill was before the House, in answer to an earlier Question before Christmas. I have nothing to add to what was said on that occasion.

Mr. Rippon: Would the Minister agree that next year the average ratepayer will get the largest rate bill of his life? Will he say when the Government will give effect to their pledge to give early relief to ratepayers?

Mr. Greenwood: We have already given help to ratepayers. If there is an increase it will be less than would have been the case if we had not put on the Statute Book the Local Government Bill. It is much too early for the right hon. Gentleman to come to these conclusions. The full figures are not available, but he will have noticed already that five counties have decided not to increase their precept this year.

Caravan Sites

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many caravan sites there are in southwest Essex and in the north-eastern quarter of Greater London; whether they are all full; and what steps he is taking to help local authorities get rid of caravans permanently parked on the grass verges of trunk roads in Redbridge.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Department has no record of private sites. One London borough council in this area has established a residential caravan site, and I understand that it is full. We have asked local authorities to provide sites and in the case of London boroughs reports are expected by 1st March.

Mr. Iremonger: Would the hon. Gentleman try to do something to see that the boroughs act in this case? I am afraid it may be a case of each one thinking that it is the other one's business. This is really a case where his Department might bring its influence to bear.

Mr. MacColl: That is precisely the point of the circular, to enable us to see

which local authorities need encouragement to do more.

Mr. John Wells: Would the Minister give the House an assurance that this survey is affecting all local authorities which have caravan problems within, say, a 50-mile radius of London?

Mr. MacColl: The survey is covering all local authorities who are involved in the problem.

River Thames (Flood Barrier)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what decision is being reached on the building of the Dartford flood barrier to protect the London area from possible North Sea surges and flooding, in view of the very small margin of safety now available against surges coincident with a high spring tide.

Mr. McColl: A decision will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the Minister really go into this matter urgently, because London is at risk in case there is a flood, and tens of thousands of acres in the London area could be flooded in the surge? This matter has been hanging about for a year or two. Cannot the Government come to a decision?

Mr. MacColl: It is the very gravity of the problem and the importance of getting the right solution that make it necessary to examine very carefully the various alternatives that are still being canvassed.

Smoke Control

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has most recently taken to encourage local authorities in the black areas to bring their areas under smoke control.

Mr. Mellish: The Department wrote last year to a number of authorities which had made little progress. Of these, 22 have submitted smoke control Orders since, and a further seven have been amalgamated with authorities carrying out smoke control programmes. The Department has pursued the matter with the others, and some are expected to submit Orders shortly.
More premises were included in smoke control Orders last year than in either of the two previous years.

Mr. Longden: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the Clean Air Act is having any effect whatsoever in making the air in London less filthy?

Mr. Mellish: London has a very good record in this matter. Last year we published a list of those authorities which were not complying with the request. In fact, we showed up those authorities for being black. It had a remarkable effect.

Town Centre Renewal

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what returns have so far been received by his Department in reply to Circular 50/66 on town centre renewal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacColl: At 31st January, 255 local authorities had submitted proposals relating to 432 town centre redevelopment schemes. 89 are known to be on the point of submitting returns involving a further 166 schemes.
It will take some time to draw up a programme for loan sanctions. Meanwhile, as I informed the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) on 12th December, 1966, a number of proposals have been accepted as commitments.—[Vol. 739, c. 37.]

Mr. Morris: May I assure my hon. Friend that considerable urgency is attached to this matter? Can he assure me that his Department will take very quick action as soon as the inquiry is completed?

Mr. MacColl: As I have said, the urgency is being met by the existing commitment, which will keep us occupied. I quite agree, however, that we want to get a decision on this matter as soon as we can.

Low-Income Families

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will consult with local authorities with a view to ensuring that low-income families applying for the benefit of provisions administered by

various Departments are not required to submit to more than one inquiry into means;
(2) whether he will consult with local authorities with a view to ensuring that the test of need for provisions applying to low-income families is more uniform, as between various local authorities and within each authority.

Mr. Mellish: Of the services for which my right hon. Friend is directly responsible, rate rebates are already on a uniform basis; the qualifications are laid down in the Act. In the case of rent rebates for council houses, local authorities have deliberately been given a discretion so that they can take account of local circumstances.

Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that from area to area and from service to service, some families are submitting to as many as 10 separate means tests and that one research worker has found 56 different definitions of the word "income"? Is it beyond the wit of man to devise some sort of order?

Mr. Mellish: It may not be beyond the wit of man, but other benefits are payable by other Government Departments. In the case of my own Department, I have already given the information that there is uniformity, but there are a number of other benefits which are given to small-income families—for example, school meals, university awards and home helps. To a large extent, this is a matter for local authority initiative.

North Sea Gas

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his policy so far as planning is concerned for the reception of North Sea gas.

Mr. Greenwood: I am very concerned about the amenity and other planning considerations involved in the reception of North Sea gas and I shall balance them against the need to bring the gas ashore cheaply and efficiently.

Mr. Peyton: The question of cheapness does not come into the question of where the supplies are brought ashore. Does not the Minister consider it necessary to keep the reception arrangements away from the coastline, which could easily be done? Will he not come clean


on this matter and make a decision soon so that arrangements for the reception of the gas can be made at places where the least possible damage is done to amenity?

Mr. Greenwood: I have said that I am very concerned about the amenity aspects of this matter, but I must be careful not to prejudge the issue which will be raised at the public inquiry which is starting at Bacton, on the Norfolk coast, in the very near future. I am well aware of the points that the hon. Member has made.

Rates

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average sum paid in rates by a domestic ratepayer in 1951–52, in 1964–65 and in 1966–67; and what was the annual average percentage increase at compound interest between 1951–52 and 1964–65, and between 1964–65 and 1966–67.

Mr. MacColl: The average sum paid by a domestic ratepayer was £16 8s. 0d. in 1951–52, £25 5s. 10d. in 1961–62, £32 8s. 5d. in 1964–65 and £39 5s. 10d. in 1966–67, allowing for rate rebates. The average annual increase was 4·3 per cent. between 1951–52 and 1961–62, 8·7 per cent. between 1961–62 and 1964–65 and 11·3 per cent. between 1964–65 and 1966–67.

Mr. Allason: If this is the Minister's idea of bringing early relief to ratepayers, will the Parliamentary Secretary persuade him to do the opposite?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member might like to know that the biggest single increase in any one year was in 1957, under a Conservative Government, when it was 15 per cent. The current year's increase is proportionately less than for last year, which seems to indicate that we are moving in the right direction.

Mr. Rippon: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we took steps to reduce the figure after 1957–58? What are the Government doing to deal with the present situation?

Mr. MacColl: We have taken steps to relieve the ratepayer and my right hon. Friend has made it clear in the Rate Support Grant Report that he wishes local authorities to practice all economy on the public sector.

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the likely average increase in rate poundage in England and Wales in 1967–68.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend can make no estimate of the likely average rate poundage for 1967–68, which will depend on decisions taken by local authorities in the coming weeks.

Mr. Murton: In view of the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to Question No. 16, if that is a fact, is it not quite possible, and indeed probable, that since the Labour Government came into power the average rise in rates in poundage has been 3s.?

Mr. MacColl: I think we must wait to see the final decisions of the local authorities before we jump to a conclusion.

Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that already the average rise has been 2s. in the £ since the Labour Party came to office? What are they going to do about that?

Mr. MacColl: We have seen a tremendous improvement in local services since the Labour Government came into power and, as my right hon. Friend said, we are anxious to keep up the standards within the limits the country can afford, but that must be under control.

Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool has been able to announce it can hold the rate poundage this year solely because of the subsidy being supplied by the Government?

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government upon what criteria he fixed the domestic element of the rate support grant for 1967–68; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. MacColl: The domestic element for 1967–68, amounting to £23 million, represents the estimated product of a rate of 5d. in the pound on domestic here-ditaments in England and Wales. A rate of 5d. in the pound, as explained in the White Paper on Local Government Finance published last year, is equivalent to nearly half the average increase in rates since the revaluation which came into effect on 1st April, 1963.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that the effect of the Government's policies is that the rise in rates will more than cancel out the relief which they have given in legislation so far? Is he aware of the rising anger, certainly in my constituency, about the increase in rates? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman has some very odd people in his constituency. All that I can say is that, from all the evidence that I have received, there is very great satisfaction with the working of the domestic element among all constituencies.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fact that the Government have reversed the policy of previous Conservative Administrations and are now shifting the burden from the ratepaper to the taxpayer is likely to result in my return in Harrow with an advanced majority and in the political extinction of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant)?

Mr. Ridsdale: Could the hon. Gentle. man say how far the 5d. which the Government are giving towards rate support will go to pay for the 159,000 or so extra employees in local government which there have been since 1964?

Mr. MacColl: That is another question.

Mr. Grant: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Coal Concentration Depot, Lewes

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the objections of the East Sussex County Council and the Lewes Borough Council to the joint proposal of the Railways Board and the National Coal Board to establish a large coal concentration depôt in Lewes, he will give an assurance that he will only grant planning permission if both authorities agree or after there has been a public inquiry.

Mr. MacColl: The Railways Board are statutory undertakers and could probably carry out this development on railway land without specific planning

permission. I am informed, however that the Board have not finally decided on this particular site and are considering the possibilities of an alternative.

Sir T. Beamish: While not questioning the need for a coal concentration depôt in the general neighbourhood, or even that Lewes might make sense geographically, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there are so many serious snags attaching to this proposal, which is hotly opposed by all the local authorities concerned, that the only thing to say is, "Please think again"?

Mr. MacColl: That is precisely what, I think, the Railways Board are doing. They have not taken a final decision and I understand that they are continuing their discussions with the local authorities.

Gypsies (Camp Sites)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has now received from all local authorities the replies requested within six months by his June circular on the provision of camp sites for gypsies; and if he will now make a statement about legislation to ensure that the sites are used when provided.

Mr. MacColl: Not all the replies have been received. We are pressing the others to complete their investigations in order that my right hon. Friend can judge what further action is needed.

Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend really intend that my constituency, where the problem is vitally urgent, has to wait until every leisurely local authority has replied before the Minister can act?

Mr. MacColl: No, but we have to wait, as I said in a previous Answer, until all the other neighbouring authorities which are involved in the problem have explained what they will do.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister confirm that when his circular was issued in June last year, replies were requested from local authorities by the middle of December, 1966? Why has he now granted them an extension of time until 1st March, 1967? Is not this another example of the delaying action which local authorities always exercise over any attempt to deal with this problem?

Mr. MacColl: 1st March was the date for the London boroughs, which were not covered by the circular. The date for the circular remains the end of December and we are taking steps to get replies from the authorities which have not yet furnished them.

Mr. Deedes: Is the Minister aware of the handicap that this policy imposes upon counties such as Kent which are trying to reach a sensible solution but find it impossible unless other counties coordinate their arrangements?

Mr. MacColl: It is because the difficulty which faces counties like Kent makes it necessary to get the other authorities to participate that my right hon. Friend is taking steps by means of the circular to do just that.

Valuation Panels (London Area)

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date the reorganisation of the valuation panels in the London area will take effect.

Mr. MacColl: 1st April, 1967.

Mr. Scott: Is the Minister aware that these panels are appointed on a party proportional basis, and in these circumstances would it not be fairer to postpone the date till after the next G.L.C. elections, when there will be considerable changes in the political complexion?

Mr. MacColl: Without attempting any anticipation of what may happen and what larger Labour majorities may increase the proportions, I think most people want these panels to get started with their very important work, and we have been pressed to speed up the appointments.

Rates (Teachers' Salaries)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will institute discussions with the local authority associations, the Association of Education Committees and other interested bodies to examine the feasibility of transferring the larger part of the rate-borne expenditure on teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer.

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. Any major reform of local government finance must

await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister not aware that the rate-borne expenditure for teachers' salaries for the year 1965–66 amounted to £230 million, for which the Local Government Act 1966, did absolutely nothing? Does he not regard the Answer that he has just given as a betrayal of the Labour Party's promise in its 1964 manifesto to transfer the greater part of this burden to the Exchequer? Furthermore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is long enough for the hon. Gentleman to answer.

Mr. MacColl: The Local Government Act pays an increasing proportion of educational expenditure each year. In addition, the new formula of education units provides more sensitive assistance to education.

Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that is an entirely cynical and irresponsible reply? Does he not recognise that the whole basis of the Labour Party's pledge to give early relief to ratepayers was that the greater part of the rate-borne cost of teachers' salaries would be transferred to the Exchequer? Why do not the Government do that?

Mr. MacColl: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rebuke with respect, coming as it does from a master of what is irresponsible.

Mr. Rossi: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Agrément Board

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to publicise the work of the Agrément Board among local authorities.

Mr. Mellish: A circular was issued to local authorities yesterday. I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for beating my Question by one day. Is he aware that the work of the Agrément Board is somewhat retarded because of the lack of an insurance system similar to the one which the French are using? Would he consider again whether it is possible to introduce it?

Mr. Mellish: I take my hon. Friend's advice. Incidentally, she will be glad to know that the first certificate was issued by the Board on 17th January.

Tenants (Leases)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he plans to take about those owners and agents who offer leases over 21 years to tenants in order to avoid the Rent Act, 1965, regulations.

Mr. Greenwood: I have given publicity to the need for prospective tenants to take expert, independent advice before signing leases of more than 21 years; and, as my hon. Friend said in answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 20th January, provision to bring long leases of dwellings at full market rents within the Rent Act, 1965, will be included in the forthcoming Bill on leasehold reform.

Mr. Winnick: While I am grateful for that Answer—I am sure that all my hon. Friends are grateful for it—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a number of bright boys in the property world are exploiting the loophole in the Rent Act, 1965? Would he ensure that there is the maximum amount of publicity in order to warn off these property sharks?

Mr. Greenwood: I am well aware of that, and I have already taken steps through the issue of Press notices and guidance to local authorities and citizens advice bureaux. We hope that any existing loophole will be filled by the forthcoming legislation.

Mr. Graham Page: Is there any justification for depriving a tenant of the security of a 21-year lease and the right to sell something—because he has a property right—and perhaps the right to enfranchise if the Government's legisla-

tion is introduced? Is there any justification for depriving the tenant of all that?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman must await the Bill to see how wrong he is.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now completed his review of the conditions governing general consent for the sale of council houses; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the modifications he proposes to make to the conditions of general consent for the sale of council houses outlined in Circular 5/60.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope to issue fresh guidance shortly to local authorities as to the considerations which they should bear in mind in deciding whether or not to sell. In general, however, I think that local authorities ought not to sell their houses where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents and where they intend to continue a substantial programme of building houses to let.

Mr. Murton: Does not the Minister realise that an attempt to curtail the general consent which now exists will be received with great resentment by the potential owner-occupiers who are already tenants of these council houses which might be sold?

Mr. Greenwood: I think the hon. Gentleman had better await the circular.

Mr. Allason: Would the Minister agree that a house does not disappear from use simply because it changes ownership from a local authority to an owner-occupier, and that there is a very great desire in this country for owner-occupation?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes. We want to avoid houses going out of council possession which are made available for people who can pay only moderate rents. We want to encourage home ownership, but this is primarily a matter for the private sector of industry to deal with.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that his statement will


be welcomed by the large numbers of people on the registers whose applications will be held up if there is any considerable sale of council houses?

Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister say when he expects to issue this new circular? Will he also give an undertaking that the considerations which local authorities are expected to bear in mind will include the consideration that a recent survey showed that 80 per cent. of the people of this country want to own their own house?

Mr. Greenwood: In reply to the first part of the question, I hope to issue this guidance very shortly. In reply to the second half of the question, that is why we are doing everything possible to encourage the private sector of industry to meet the need for home ownership.

Old Houses (Improvement)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has now prepared to accelerate the installing of baths, hot water and inside lavatories in houses lacking them, following the publication of "Our Older Houses" by his Department.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to implement the provisions of the Older Houses Order.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend has asked the local authority interests concerned for their views on this report. He will make a statement after he has had an opportunity to study what they say.

Mr. Allaun: Whilst welcoming that Answer, may I ask whether, in order to overcome the feet-dragging by most private landlords, the Parliamentary Secretary will consider cutting the unduly long procedure required of local authorities, and secondly, providing loans for the small landlords?

Mr. Mellish: We are expecting the preliminary reactions of local authorities by the end of February. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend's decision will be, but some will no doubt require legislation. I assure my hon. Friend that we are as keen as he is to ensure that the whole procedure should

be speeded up. Many private landlords are, however, taking advantage of existing legislation, and I wish that some of these other authorities would follow this lead.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that although there have been experiments in this field and improvements over the past few years, neither side of the House thinks that we have the satisfactory solution yet? Can the Minister give any assurance as to when he will bring in new legislation in this matter, because new legislation is necessary?

Mr. Mellish: I accept this, but in matters of this kind we must carry the local authorities with us. That is why this report has gone out. We are hoping for the preliminary reactions some time in February. I hope that in a very short time after that my right hon. Friend will be ready to discuss with them the sort of permanent legislation that he would like to introduce.

Controlled Rents

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to make an Order bringing controlled rents into the rent regulation system.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not at present propose to make such an Order.

Mr. Longden: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that there is either justice or equity in denying to any property owner the right to appeal to a tribunal to fix a rent which will enable him to keep his property in proper repair, and to enjoy a reasonable return on his investment?

Mr. Greenwood: There are difficulties on both sides. It would not be right at the moment to upset the whole machinery of the Rent Act, which in many areas has been in operation for only seven months so far.

Mr. Lipton: Would my hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of tenancies which are still under rent control? The number has been diminishing rapidly in recent years.

Mr. Greenwood: I understand that the number is about 2 million.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm his predecessor's pledge to take this step as soon as the rent officers were able to cope with the necessary work?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not believe seven months is long enough to decide whether or not that is the case. I believe there are possibilities of reorganising the burden falling upon rent officers in order to make quite sure that the burden is more fairly spread than it is at the moment.

Mr. Winnick: Recognising that there are certain problems connected with this matter, may I ask whether the Minister would encourage local authorities to purchase properties of this sort where the landlord is willing to sell? Would the Minister agree that where a landlord has been able to charge any sort of rent in the past as under the 1957 Rent Act, there has been great reluctance on the part of landlords and property companies to carry out repairs?

Mr. Greenwood: That is a different Question.

Building Programme

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses were completed in England and Wales in the calendar year 1966; and how many he expects will be completed in the calendar year 1967.

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total number of new permanent dwellings completed in Great Britain in 1966.

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the progress of Her Majesty's Government's housing programme.

Mr. Greenwood: 385,509 houses were completed in Great Britain in 1966, of which 349,480 were in England and Wales. No specific targets have been set for 1967. I expect a further rise in public sector completions in 1967. The main need is to increase the output of houses for sale.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the rate of increase for 1966 over 1965 something like three-quarters of 1 per cent.? Is

that what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke about treating housing like an operation of war? At this rate of increase, how far shall we be into the next century before the Government's target of 500,000 houses a year is achieved?

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman's capacity for gloom is unlimited. I have not done the calculations that the right hon. Gentleman has done, but the fact remains that over three-quarters of a million families have moved into new homes since the present Government took office.

Mr. Rossi: As the Minister's predecessor stated in the House on 1st March last that this year the country would build 400,000 houses, will the right Gentleman please state, on his current figure, what has happened to the missing 15,000 houses?

Mr. Greenwood: My right hon. Friend on that occasion made a forecast, which failed because of the economic situation of the country. What happened last year was that the number of completions by public authorities went up by 11,500 and those in the private sector fell by 8,400. That is not something for which I blame the private sector of the industry. It really stemmed from the country's economic situation in July.

Mrs. Knight: Is not the Minister aware that a great many Cathys who are rather anxious to come home will not be very satisfied with that reply and that a great many of them put their hope and faith in the Government to carry out an election pledge, which they have failed to do?

Mr. Greenwood: It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice, but it will not have escaped the notice of many thousands of Cathys throughout the country, that last year we built a bigger number of houses than ever before in the history of the country.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the party opposite, when they were in power, had shown any signs of decency and understanding to local authorities—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this because they do not like the truth—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not interrupt himself.

Mr. Molloy: Mr. Speaker, I think that you must have been unaware of the cacophony amongst hon. Members opposite resulting from the confusion of the Conservatives. The question I am asking is, is my right hon. Friend aware that during the 13 years when the party opposite was in power that party showed no help to the local authorities which were trying to tackle the housing problem, and that if that party had been more decent in its attitude the problem of housing would not be pressing as it is now?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, and I think the local authorities and the private sector are to be congratulated on having survived 13 years of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Rippon: Is the Minister aware that if the Government had carried forward Conservative policies and programmes which they inherited 70,000 more families would have been in new homes by the end of last year? Will he agree that, for what it is worth, the Chancellor's statement yesterday, which he could not make in this House, proves that what we have been saying over the last year is perfectly correct about private house building?

Mr. Greenwood: The Chancellor's statement was made yesterday in reply to a Question in this House. It was a Written Reply and it was the logical outcome of the policy which we have been pursuing over the last two years.

Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the statement made by the Chancellor yesterday, and also his letters to the building societies—welcome, at least to us on this side—will go a long way towards meeting the increased demand for houses? Does he not feel it is up to the builders now to meet this demand?

Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, and I believe these statements, whatever dismay they struck in the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be a great encouragement to the industry.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek your per-

mission, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what reasons the total number of completed houses in Great Britain in 1966 fell below the target announced by his predecessor on 1st March 1966.

Mr. Greenwood: On 1st March, 1966, my right hon. Friend the Lord President made a forecast: he did not set a target. As a result of our economic difficulties we completed 15,000 fewer houses in 1966 than the forecast, but it was still an all-time record.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously trying.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting time.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously drawing a distinction between a forecast and a target? What sort of double-talk is that?

Mr. Greenwood: It is not double-talk at all. My right hon. Friend the Lord President made the forecast. Then, later in the year, in the face of economic difficulties, it was found not possible to do that. But the fact remains that we completed during the year, for most of which my right hon. Friend was responsible for our housing programme, more houses than right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever completed in a single year.

Sir J. Rodgers: How does the Minister square his conscience with the promise given at the election that more houses would be built for purchase, when there are far less available for private purchase now than before?

Mr. Greenwood: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has noticed the discussions which we have been having on this matter. I believe that they will bear fruit. I believe that we have the confidence of the industry.

Public Health Inspectors

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, because of their practical knowledge of housing, repair and improvement


questions, he will consider including at least one public health inspector in the staff of his Department.

Mr. Mellish: The recent secondment of a public health inspector to the Department for a year proved most useful and my right hon. Friend will keep in mind the possibility of a similar arrangement for the future, but he is not satisfied that a full-time appointment would be justified at present.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that these devoted men made more than 20,000 house visits a day, which gives them exceptional personal understanding of the problems involved, and that the Ministry of Health has two on its staff?

Mr. Mellish: Oh, yes, I accept that and the local authorities have made available some 25 of their inspectors to carry out field work on a national survey of housing conditions. It will last another month. We recognise the ability and the integrity of these people. My hon. Friend asked for a permanent appointment. I will look into that. We use these people when we can.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of that rather disappointing reply, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at this again to see if he can use the contribution these men can make, not only at the Ministry of Health but in other Departments as well?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir.

House Builders (Registration Scheme)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultation he has had in the course of his official discussions with the National House Builders' Registration Council, concerning publication by the Council of the names of builders who are expelled from the registration scheme because of shoddy building; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend has discussed this with the Council as part of the wider question of information to the public and I will inform my hon. Friend of the outcome in due course.

Mr. Morris: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether

he is aware that the secrecy about faulty builders who have been excluded from the scheme is causing widespread concern; and will he agree that if there were not secrecy there would be a demand to legislate to deal with this matter?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, we understand that, and are in consultation about this, and one of the first and most important things to do in this matter is to publish the names of all builders on the Register so that, by implication, those whose names are not on will join and get on quickly.

Mortgage Guarantee Scheme

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he decided to postpone indefinitely the introduction of a Government sponsored 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee; and whether he will now reconsider his decision.

Mr. Greenwood: The option mortgage scheme must come first and this will add to the demand for finance for house purcase. When this need has been met, we shall decide, with knowledge of the amount of money then available, when to bring the guarantee scheme into operation.

Mr. Scott: The Minister has not told us why he postponed it. Does he not agree that the postponing of the 100 per cent. scheme will render the option scheme largely useless, because the very people who want the option scheme will not have the 100 per cent. mortgages?

Mr. Greenwood: I have dealt with this question on previous occasions. We have to have the money available for the building societies to meet the additional commitments into which they will enter this year. We can then proceed to the next stage of the scheme, but it would be quite wrong, I think, to anticipate the successful completion of the period between now and the end of the year.

Mr. Graham Page: If the Minister cannot carry out yet another promise of the Government, would he kindly consider introducing the Conservative proposal for supplementing the savings of those who have saved up for their deposits—by a grant, not by loan?

Mr. Greenwood: There is certainly no question here of breaking a promise. Building society funds this year will be considerably greater than last year, and I think they must have those funds to meet the demands which will be made on them. We can then go ahead with the option scheme to meet the demand, and I am quite satisfied that the demand can be met and we can bring the scheme into operation.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many companies taking advantage of the present situation, and providing second mortgages at enormous interest rates? Will my right hon. Friend consider guaranteeing second mortgages so as to alleviate the problems of people buying houses?

Mr. Greenwood: I will look into that.

Private House Building

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in which year he anticipates that the total of houses completed in the private sector will rise to the level achieved in 1964.

Mr. Greenwood: I am discussing with the builders and the building societies what needs to be done to stimulate private housebuilding in addition to the steps announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday and it would not be useful to make a forecast at the present time.

Mr. Grant: Yes, in view of the fact that some 51,000 families who would otherwise have enjoyed new homes have been let down in the last two years by the Labour Government, if the Minister will not give a pledge, can he give at least a light promise?

Mr. Greenwood: Building Societies advanced a record amount last year and they expect to increase it this year, and the proposals made yesterday about building finance and bridging finance will give great help to the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Q.1. Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with President de Gaulle at their Paris meeting on Great Britain's eventual

entry into the European Economic Community as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with a special relationship to the United States.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My hon. Friend appears to have misunderstood the purpose of my meeting with President de Gaulle, Sir. As to this I would refer him to the Answers I gave to Questions on 26th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 1765.]

Mr. Zilliacus: Did not the Prime Minister send President de Gaulle the text of his Strasbourg speech in which he referred to the object of strengthening the Atlantic Alliance and entering the Common Market? Did the President make clear that he has withdrawn his previous objections to Britain entering on that basis?

The Prime Minister: I answered the second part of that Question on 26th January. These matters played a very small part in the talks with President de Gaulle. Yes, certainly I sent him a copy of the Strasbourg speech, but I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite fairly represented what it said.

Mr. Shinwell: Although we recognise the Government's right and responsibility to engage in a probe about this subject, would my right hon. Friend ensure in future that no civil servant or ambassador intervenes in a matter of this sort and indulges in biased statements?

The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend is referring to the case that I think he is, I have been into it very carefully. The matter has been scandalously misreported. In what the Ambassador said he was perfectly within his rights and factually correct.

Q.2. Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with the Governments concerned, during his recent discussions on the European Economic Community, on the amendments to the Rome Treaty required to make possible the planning of the economy of the United Kingdom on the lines considered necessary by the Government.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,


North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on 2nd February. [Vol. 740, c. 771.]

Mr. Zilliacus: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 3rd August, 1961, he told the House that it would not be possible to plan the economy on the lines considered necessary by Labour without substantial amendments to the Treaty of Rome, and that he repeated that statement on 7th June, 1962, and 1st August, 1962? Has he changed his mind on this issue, or have our partners agreed to those conditions?

The Prime Minister: I can remember the speeches very well. I am sorry that my hon. Friend missed out the one of 13th December, 1962, at the same time. As I explained to the House when we debated these matters, we are now more concerned with the way that the Treaty of Rome is operating than with the exact provision of it. We are satisfied that it does not contain the inhibitions which my right hon. Friend has referred to.

Lord Balniel: We appreciate that the Prime Minister must reserve his negotiating position, but when he is asked a blunt question as to whether or not he accepts the principle of the agricultural levies, does he say "Yes" or "No"?

The Prime Minister: That matter is not raised in this Question. We have entered into prolonged discussions. I shall make a report to the House about those. Certainly I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman's own Leader, in a speech which he made recently in Westminster, seeking, I think, to negotiate on behalf of Europe, made it plain, I thought, that he accepted all the financial provisions. We have made it plain that it is our position that there are very serious difficulties raised about this on which we shall need to negotiate. I do not think that it helps when the right hon. Gentleman, who should also be speaking for Britain, gives away the point from this country.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nationalised steel industry of Italy has made more progress than any other part of the steel industry of Europe under the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to compare the progress of a nationalised industry in Italy with a nationalised industry in Austria, which has also made

great progress. It has always been agreed by both Front Benches, both in the previous negotiations and now, that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which stands in the way of a sovereign decision of a Parliament of any of the countries to take an industry into public ownership.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Prime Minister said a moment ago that he was more concerned with the actual operation of the Treaty than with the specific provisions in it. In so far as the two are not the same, does not that reinforce the case for pressing for amendments to the Treaty of Rome in the discussions which he is having?

The Prime Minister: That is not the view we have taken. We have made a very close study of the way in which this has been operating, and on this point as on others I have said that we do not feel that the Treaty of Rome as such should be a bar to British entry. There are other problems, including agricultural levies, which we are not treating so lightheartedly as right hon. Gentlemen opposite are, but these will have to be discussed.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask a plain question? When did the Prime Minister discover that the provisions of the Rome Treaty were acceptable? Was he always of that opinion?

The Prime Minister: I have already dealt with this question. On a reading of the Treaty of Rome in 1962—and I think that this is true of many hon. Members in the House, on both sides—it seemed that derogations would be necessary. We have now had five years more experience, since 1961, of its operation, and many of the fears that I had—and I think that this is probably true of some hon. Gentlemen opposite—have proved to be unfounded in actual operation, and it is operation that counts.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had recently with President Johnson about trying to end the war in Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to Questions on this subject by my right hon. Friend


the First Secretary of State on 24th January.—[Vol. 739. c. 1263.]

Mr. Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen some tentative Press reports that Hanoi was willing to start negotiations but called them off when the Americans started bombing again last December? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people in Europe who believe that President Johnson is far more interested in trying to win this war than in negotiating?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that during this week it would be helpful to comment on a number of important points about Vietnam, but, as my hon. Friend has referred to the discussions in December, of which I have all the details, perhaps I might tell him it is my view that what happened then was based on a very considerable two-way misunderstanding, and that is why I think certain events in December occurred. If my hon. Friend is referring to the Polish discussions in anything that has happened since then, I do not think that it would be very helpful for me to offer comments this afternoon.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told a Labour Party meeting last week that after the Prime Minister dissociated Britain last summer from the American bombing of oil installations near Hanoi we had great difficulty in regaining our influence with the American Government? If that is so, should not the House be told?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for reports of party meetings, which I usually find highly inaccurate, certainly in so far as they relate to anything that I have said there. But, on this question, there were many who felt at the time, between 29th June or 30th June and my visit to America, that it would sour relations. When I was there on 28th and 29th July there was no sign of that, and the hon. Gentleman will realise what a close relationship was established on that occasion.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the ambiguous statements made last week by Mr. Dean Rusk and President Johnson, he will suggest to President Johnson that he should now make an unequivocal

declaration that the United States Government are willing to sit down and negotiate with the N.L.F., the people against whom they are really fighting, as the French negotiated with the Vietminh in 1954?

The Prime Minister: I have said that I do not think it would be helpful to go into detailed questions on the problems which have to be settled before negotiations can start, but my impression was that in that broadcast Mr. Dean Rusk suggested that this would not be a difficulty when the time came.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to set up a Ministry of Consumer Affairs to assist both retailers and consumers.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Prime Minister agree, however, that at the moment Government Departments, from Trade to Technology, are orientated much more to production than to distribution? Would he further agree that some changes are taking place in retailing, and that a Ministry of Consumer Affairs of this type would give useful advice to the retailer, as well as much needed protection to the consumer?

The Prime Minister: This suggestion has been studied on a number of occasions. It was studied by ourselves in opposition, and rejected. It was studied by the Molony Committee and rejected, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the very special concern for these problems of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade who specialises in these consumer questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES (STAFF AND EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the Report of the Estimates Committee, he will give a direction to Ministers not to appoint staff or incur expenditure in advance of the enabling legislation receiving the Royal Assent.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and I would recommend the hon. Member to study the Departmental observations on


the Report which are now available to the House before making up his own mind in this matter.

Mr. Ridley: In that answer, which I have studied, the Government rejected the suggestion because the circumstances were highly exceptional and unusual. Would not the Prime Minister agree that appointing Lord Melchett at a paid salary before the Iron and Steel Bill becomes law is not a highly exceptional circumstance, and will he reconsider that?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to that case, I agree that it is not exceptional at all. There have been many cases, some within my personal knowledge, where an organising committee has been established well ahead of the legislation receiving the Royal Assent so that the necessary preliminary work could be done, and so that there was no undue delay between the Royal Assent and the organisation being set up. I could quote examples from my own personal knowledge going back to 1948, which were strongly supported by the House at the time.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on television recently that he had appointed the Decimal Currency Board, not only before legislation was introduced into this House but before the matter had even been debated, except in private Members' time, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in a matter of this importance it is essential that the approval of the House should be secured before these appointments are made?

The Prime Minister: It is two years since the Government made the announcement about introducing decimal currency at the date which was then announced. I am aware that there is great controversy about the particular form of the currency, but this is not a reason for not having a Decimal Currency Board, because there is a great deal of work to be done by industry, by shops, by banks and by others, and it is important that this work should be got under way.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC GROWTH

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with overall responsibility for economic growth.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's record has been lamentable? During the two and a half years that they have been in office, growth has been going on at only slightly over one per cent. a year. Is not the Prime Minister ashamed of this deplorable result?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman regards it as lamentable and deplorable to reverse a balance of payments deficit of £800 million, which was all that they could do after 13 years, and get to the position where we face a prospective surplus this year, I do not share his use of those words, but he will realise what reversing this dangerous Conservative trend has meant in these two years for growth.

Mr. Peyton: Is not the Prime Minister missing a never-to-be-repeated opportunity, because does not there appear to be a job for the Paymaster-General here?

The Prime Minister: There always seems to be something about that second bench below the Gangway which leads to that particular kind of frivolity. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is, of course, responsible for economic co-ordination, planning physical resources, and everything concerned with our expansion plans, and it is not necessary to go further than I have in strengthening his Department.

Mr. Heath: What is to be the rate of growth this year?

The Prime Minister: I would not like to forecast that, any more than my predecessor did in 1956, or any other Conservative Prime Minister who was asked this, but the right hon. Gentleman who made so much party capital last July out of the measures that we had to take, will, I hope, now stand up and admit that they are having a very considerable success on exports, on the balance of payments, on sterling, and on all the other things in respect of which he has been trying to sell this country short.

Hon. Members: Stand up.

Mr. Lipton: Reverting to the original Question, and generally speaking, have not we sufficient Ministers already?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think we just about have.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (PUBLIC STATEMENT)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the President of the Board of Trade in Glasgow on 3rd January on the subject of the level of industrial investment in 1967, represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend on that occasion said that private investment in 1967 was not going to fall as forecast, and that 16 days later his own Department published a statement saying that private investment in industry would fall not by the 8 per cent. previously forecast but by a new high figure of 10 per cent.? Will he stop his right hon. Friend making such asinine statements?

The Prime Minister: The Board of Trade inquiry was taken over a period of time in the later months of 1966. Since then two things have happened. First, it is clear that the figures for investment in 1966 have been much higher than was then expected, and that affects the forecast for 1967 and, secondly—and I think that the hon. Member will agree with this—there has been a considerable change in business sentiment affecting investment, amongst other things, since the rather gloomy view taken in November.

Sir G. Nabarro: I sympathise with the Prime Minister about his forecast concerning growth this year, but will not he confide to the House what estimate he has made of the level of unemployment this year?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what was said in the last debate on unemployment. As I have said, there are now signs that the increasing unemployment resulting from the measures that had to be taken is flattening out. As for investment, even if I have had to qualify the Board of Trade's figure it still means that the level of investment is only 3 per cent. below that of 1964 which, the House will recall, was an election boom year—so it is not for the hon. Member to get too tragic or sympathetic about it.

Mr. Heath: What will be the fall in investment this year? If the 1966 figure will be higher than that anticipated by the Board of Trade when it made its forecast for the decline in 1967, surely the drop will be greater between the two years, and not less. Is it to be the 7 per cent. forecast by the Board of Trade, the 10 per cent. forecast by the National Institute, or the 15 to 20 per cent. forecast by the C.B.I.?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember, from his own time at the Board of Trade, that the figures are not compiled in that way—in terms of a percentage drop from the previous year—in every case. Probably the increased investment last year was the reason for expecting something rather higher than we have had. [Interruption.] I am answering the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He is quite capable of looking after himself, without being helped by his hon. Friends. There is no reason to think that because investment was higher in 1966 the fall will be greater. As for the estimates, at this time it is difficult to speculate, but the right hon. Gentleman has correctly quoted the three or four different estimates made. I think that it will certainly prove to be the case—as most people agree—that the C.B.I.'s estimate of last October is far too gloomy. There is now a pick-up of confidence affecting the situation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House. Following on the debate on Procedure on 14th December last, I propose, on and from Thursday, to change the arrangements for the ballot for the hour-half Adjournment to meet the wishes of the House as indicated in that debate.
Details of these arrangements will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the details:

Members desiring to raise a matter on the Adjournment must write to Mr. Speaker by


Wednesday evening of each week stating the subject of the Adjournment.

Monday evening will be reserved for subjects to be chosen by the Speaker, and as selection relates to the subject and not the Member, no alteration of the subject will be allowed without the Speaker's permission.

Subjects for the Adjournment on Monday morning, Wednesday morning and evening and Friday will be balloted for.

Subjects for Adjournments for the following week will be published in Friday's Order Paper.

Forty-eight hours notice will be required for a change of subject for a balloted Adjournment Motion, and the change will be notified in the Order Paper.

Members successful in the ballot may not enter their names for the next succeeding week.

A Member who does not wish to pursue the subject of a balloted Motion and cannot give forty-eight hours notice, loses his right to the Adjournment.

An oral notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment will not be considered by the Speaker unless it is confirmed in writing.

No Member's name will be carried forward from one ballot to another; a fresh application must be made.

A Member who has the Adjournment for a certain day and is unable to take it, cannot exchange dates with another Member.

A Member may not have more than one entry current at the same time; accordingly, if a letter is received from a Member whose name is already in the book the original entry will be expunged.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I propose the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, I may perhaps dispose of a point of order made to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and other hon. Members. The Question that I am about to propose constitutes a new Question under our rules of procedure—that is to say, any Member of the House is entitled to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. If the debate had been adjourned from last week, only those who had not already spoken would have been in order. But reference to the Votes and Proceedings will show that, unlike the next Order on today's Paper, the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill was not adjourned but was concluded in another manner. That marks the difference, from the point of view of our procedure, between the first Order of today and the Second Order.

Question proposed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. When the House was counted out the other night the debate that was under way at the time had been introduced by me. The debate was on the European Launcher Development Organisation. Because the House was counted out—due to the incompetence of the Government—the Minister was unable to reply. He rose to reply but he was prevented from doing so. May I ask whether the Minister now intends to reply to the points that I put to him?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is aware—as the hon. Member might suspect—of all the events that took place on that occasion. If he studies the Ruling that I have just given he will understand why I am calling the hon. Gentleman. I am calling.

Sir John Eden: Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) at a later stage to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to raise over


again the same matters that he sought to raise on the earlier occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood the Ruling that I made. We are now taking the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. In my Ruling I said that any hon. Member who seeks to catch my eye may seek to catch it. Whether or not he catches it is another matter.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER

Mr. David Webster: I have fortified myself with the Ruling that you gave on 31st January, Mr. Speaker, of which, for the sake of greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy. You then stated:
In the debate on the present Bill, discussion is narrowly confined to the sums of money asked for by the Ministers and to the reasons for those additional demands. This Bill should not be confused with the March Consolidated Fund Bill when grants of Supply cover the whole of the public service and when, therefore, back benchers can raise grievances"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber do so quietly?

Mr. Webster: —"before they grant Supply for any grant of the public services. There is a second consideration which I must put to the House. If the supplementary grant is for a new service, as some are, or is of the same order of magnitude as the original grant, the whole policy of that service may be raised in debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, cc. 252–3.]
I am grateful for that, because the subject that I wish to draw to your attention and to that of the House concerns a new service—that of the Parliamentary Commissioner designate, as he is called. Some people have called him the "Ombudsman", which, I understand, is deprecated by the Leader of the House—who, I am sorry to see, is leaving the Chamber, as usual. I hope that he will take note of your Ruling and leave the Chamber quietly. He certainly comes in noisily enough, and he should leave quietly. He is never here when the matters of real importance are being discussed.
I want to raise with you the question of the manner of the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate,

the matter which is to be referred to him, if any, and also the position of Parliament, which concerns every hon. Member now that the office has been established.
I refer to the House the issue which was put by the Estimates Committee when this matter was referred to that body. In its Fifth Report, the Estimates Committee administered what must be one of the most swingeing rebukes against any Government. This non-political body—if there is ever such a thing in this House—stated:
…if the procedure adopted in this case were allowed to pass without protest, the possibility would be opened up of by-passing the whole system of Parliamentary control of expenditure whenever the Executive thought it expedient to do so. They therefore consider that, before the Supplementary Estimate is passed, a clear undertaking should be given on behalf of the Government that the action taken in this case will not be used as a precedent to justify similar abuses of proper constitutional processes in the future.
I seek that undertaking today and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be in a position to give it. He and I were in the House until a very late hour last Wednesday night and he has, no doubt, studied with great care the reply given by the Treasury on this subject and all other matters. I therefore seek a clear undertaking that no action in this case will be used as a precedent. This is a matter of great significance to the whole House. It is significant that while the Treasury, as a usual exercise, argues the toss a little, it concedes that this as a basic point when it states that this allows for "a limited abortive expenditure". The Treasury is, therefore, worried. So am I. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary saw that reply before it was given by the Treasury.

Sir Douglas Glover: He wrote it.

Mr. Webster: I do not have any knowledge of what went on behind the scenes. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) speaks later, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will enlighten us on this point.
The House of Commons was treated with contempt by the Leader of the House when one recalls what occurred on Second Reading. After all, this matter had exercised the minds and tingled the thoughts of a breathless electorate. We


were told that there would be a Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with the complaints of the citizen; and many hon. Members thought that such a thing might reduce the opportunities and duties of the ordinary back bencher. Then we found that a Bill had been brought forward. The Prime Minister then stated in August that it was all right for the Parliamentary Commissioner to be set up and that if any expenditure were incurred, that, too, would be all right, although that was during the midst of an economic crisis.
Many of my hon. Friends and I thought at the time that it was a gimmick designed to take people's eyes off the crisis in hand. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is muttering from a sedentary position. I trust, if he has anything constructive to say, that he will get to his feet. We notice that whenever there is a crisis the Prime Minister, like a conjurer or a prestidigitator, will produce a rabbit out of a hat. This is indeed an expensive rabbit. It will cost the taxpayers £49,000. We know that the Government and their supporters regard Parliament as a rubber stamp, but my hon. Friends and I who have served on various Standing Committees and other bodies are not willing to accept this state of affairs.

Mr. J. T. Price: I would not like that remark to go unchallenged. I do not regard any Government as a rubber stamp and I have always been prepared to protest against any tendency which made a Government appear to be rubber stamping anything or when unnecessary powers appeared to be sought by the Executive. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is, therefore, not levelling that remark at me.

Mr. Webster: I do not apply it to the hon. Gentleman. I recall many occasions —including our discussions of National Insurance pensions and transport legislation—that he was extremely active; and I hope that he will be equally active today on this subject.
Having failed to obtain Parliamentary approval for the expenditure involved in setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate, it was thought that the expense should be placed on the Civil Contingencies Fund. When the Estimates Committee examined Treasury and other

officials on this point, the only answer it could arrive at on this type of precedent, for this type of expenditure, was to say that such a thing was normally done only when something like the purchase of a work of art was involved. I suggest that this Bill is no work of art.
Little background is available when considering this matter. I agree that there have been a number of speeches, that the Prime Minister had much to say at Stowmarket and that various other exercises in window dressing have taken place. However, this is no work of art. Instead, we are dealing with the everyday problems raised by our constituents.
An interesting article appeared in The Times on 18th October last when it stated, under the heading "Parliament's Complaint Box":
The new office and its functions are grafted on to the House of Commons, to which they will be ancillary. They thus accord with the British political tradition that for grievances which are not within the purview of the courts redress is sought in Parliament.
This means that the attitude of members of Parliament to the new institution is all important.
It is all-important, and in this matter Parliament is being treated like a rubber stamp and is almost being held in contempt. I am sorry about this, because the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate will work through hon. Members, will report to hon. Members and is a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee. We know him and trust him, but in this new function we seek to work with him. If we do not do so this will be the gimmick which many of us suspect it to be. When, on Second Reading and in the protracted Committee stage, we examined the matter further, at every step we found it to be what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) described it on 18th October last—simply a "carving-up" of the grievance machinery which will render much of this more complicated than it is at present.
The expenditure of the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate is £49,000 until the end of next month. That is a considerable bill, as the Treasury admitted. However, the Parliamentary Commissioner has as yet no actual function, except to form his staff and get into an operative situation. In the debate on the Financial Resolution, the Minister said


that the expenditure in a whole year would be no more than £200,000. I regret that the Leader of the House has still not returned to the Chamber. He left shortly after I rose to speak, as he did when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) spoke on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman left right in the middle of a speech being made by a senior Privy Councillor, who was adducing some extremely valid points. Despite the figure of £200,000, I should have thought that it would soon get above that mark. The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating the Royal Assent and is thinking in terms of a staff of 63. That may be the anticipated figure for the beginning of this office, but what will the total staff be in future?
Whatever the Treasury might say, this is a precedent that could be used in future. If Parliament does not kick up a row about this now, there can be little doubt that it will be used in future to circumnavigate Parliament and the duties of hon. Members towards their constituents in making sure that redress is given before supply is granted.
When one considers this matter in what we describe today in language far removed from poetical terms, what do we discover about our grievance machinery? We find that, progressively, sections of the economy and of society are being more and more excluded. For example, the nationalised industries and local authorities are excluded. I wonder, bearing in mind the statement of the Minister of Transport—to the effect that she will have two conurbation transport authorities—whether these new authorities will be local authority administered or a nationalised industry. Or will they be directly responsible to the Minister? If the latter is to be the case, will we have no redress in respect of complaints made against the bodies which are being established?
There are hospitals. The great difficulty of getting entry to hospitals is a very grievous and worrying thing. One reads in today's Daily Mail that in certain cases there is a self-appointed selection committee. This is a matter which the House would want to consider most seriously. I know that in certain cases, such as Rampton, there is direct ministerial responsibility and we can deal with that.
There are also the Services. I think many would agree that we are getting almost unprecedented postbags of complaints from the Services regarding the right to have demobilisation commutation. There is the Post Office and many other Departments which are placed within the ambit of this new authority.
We not only complain about the Leader of the House, who introduced the Bill but never sat in during debates on it and never sits in during debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but he has been the target of a number of early day Motions on this point. Then we have the criticisms of the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate being entitled to report to an hon. Member but not to make an award. I wonder if he is to have any teeth at all. In this case he simply refers back to the Member and to the House.
We have the anxiety of the Minister, who may say to an hon. Member who is questioning him and being a little awkward that the point may be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate. If that were done, think of the delay over the number of urgent cases in the post bag of every hon. Member.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No cases can be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate.

Mr. Webster: I am glad to hear that because a great deal of time was taken up on this point on Second Reading. There is the problem of demarcation between hon. Members and on Second Reading anxiety about this was referred to at great length.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is still under a misapprehension. None of these questions will arise until the Parliamentary Commissioner starts functioning as Parliamentary Commissioner. While he is Parliamentary Commissioner-designate he has no functions whatsoever.

Mr. Webster: We could have plenty of analogies on that. A person has no powers until he becomes putative. This is a point which exercises the House of Commons. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer these


questions and will not fob us off by suggesting that they are only academic today, because in two months' time they will be far from academic.

Mr. James Dance: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this £49,000 must be paid for something? Is it to be paid to a man who has to do something in the future, or is it just a nebulous sum?

Mr. Webster: My hon. Friend thinks very much the same as I do, and I await with interest to hear the answer.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The Financial Secretary said something which may be rather important. I understand that he is to reply to the debate on the basis of dealing only with the money which the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate has to set up his office. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled earlier, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), that because this is a new Supplementary Estimate and a new power the whole of the functions of this officer will come into debate. It would be disappointing if the hon. and learned Gentleman has come armed to reply only to a very small section of the question.

Mr. MacDermot: With respect Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you can assist on this. I understood that all we are able to consider today is the question of Parliament being asked to vote this sum which is for the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate. I conceive that it is in order to discuss his functions as a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate, but what his functions will be when he is the Parliamentary Commissioner has already been discussed on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill.

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I pointed out to the House that this is a new subject and quite a wide one.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Surely what was said from the Government Front Bench is contrary to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we can discuss policy regarding this new post. Surely

we are not limited to the setting up of that office?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Webster.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, which was that if the supplementary grant is for a new service or a service of the same magnitude, the whole policy of that service may be raised in debate. Is the Financial Secretary able to answer this debate? That is what we want to know. This is a matter of policy, not just the narrow question of expenditure for this year. It is a matter of very great importance.
I hope that the Financial Secretary has come not simply armed with the Treasury brief on the narrow point of the answer to the Estimates Committee. If so, we shall treat him exceedingly hard. He is here to answer on the whole policy. That is the Ruling of Mr. Speaker. I hope that this will not be the second occasion in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill when he will imitate the Leader of the House by ignoring a Ruling of the Chair. We are here impressed—

Mr. John Hall: I thought my hon. Friend was about to press the Financial Secretary to say definitely at this stage whether or not he is in a position to answer the debate. If he thought that he was to reply only on a narrow point, he still has time to arm himself with the information he would need to answer a full debate to follow.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be better to get on with the debate. Mr. Webster.

Mr. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Get on with the debate I shall, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be in a position to answer. Will he tell us now? No, he will not tell us. We know from debates on Finance Bills that he is courteous. I hope that he is armed with a good brief, and not just on a narrow point.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member knows that I piloted the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill through the House. I have not forgotten it already.

Mr. Webster: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has almost forgotten it in view of his answers on this narrow


point. We shall press him on this because we know that this is a gimmick, that the thing is not being done properly and that no teeth are being put into it. There is a point of constitutional importance between a Member of Parliament and his constituents and the future rôle of this House. One need only look at the pictures in the corridors of this Hòuse and another place to see the great constitutional battles which have occurred on the basic principle that supply shall be withheld from Government until redress of citizens' grievances shall be given.
This is why we are here. This is why every Member of Parliament was elected. This is why we go round every village and street in our constituencies meeting our people, getting to know their problems and saying that we are willing to raise them in this House, saying that if necessary we are willing to withhold supply to the Government, whether we are Government supporters or not. This is why Hampden, why Pym, why Eliot, why all those with famous names fought for the liberties of the Commons to defend the citizens of this country, have meaning. This is the purpose, but at the same time we must remember that this was 300 years ago. The problems may have changed a little in this slow country in 300 years. It may be an extraordinary quirk of history that Thomas Wentworth, Lord Stafford, who was eventually executed—

Mr. Speaker: This debate is wide, but not so wide as to include English history completely. I hope the hon. Member will link this with the question before us.

Mr. Webster: Yes, I shall, Mr. Speaker, and I do so now. With great prescience, Wentworth wrote to a friend:
not at least by my consent, till we be in something a better readiness for the security of the subjects in their fundamental liberties.
Supply and the redress of grievances, he said,
shall go hand in hand as one joint and continued act.
This may be changing. As Wentworth said, it may be that this new machinery of the Parliamentary Commissioner may be changing it. This may be, apart from Parliamentary Questions, the first occasion when hon. Members can redress the grievances of their constituents without having to withhold Supply. If that be

the case, it is an interesting one but we should know about it. It gives a very bad precedent for future cases that it should be an absolute rupture of the principle of Parliamentary control that Supply should be given to this machinery without Parliamentary consent. This is a very deep principle and I hope that the House will ponder it well and at length.

Mr. John Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree, having referred, as he very properly has done, to the constitutional crisis of nearly 300 years ago, that that was at a time when there was a conflict between Parliament and the Crown which was won by Parliament? Would he not agree that today the conflict is between Parliament and the Executive and that the way in which this matter has been introduced means that the Executive is winning?

Mr. Webster: Yes. I am, however, enough of an historian to tell my hon. Friend that it was never the Crown in the words of the old documents of the day. It was always the Ministers who were at fault, and they still are today.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has said, because this matter goes very deep. We are not dealing with one extraordinary item on its own. This is one of many actions which the Government have taken in deciding that they will call upon Parliament to allow moneys to be paid while Parliament is still involved in making the decision about whether that action should be taken. This is merely one example of that process.
My hon. Friend has referred to the Report of the Estimates Committee. That Report should not be taken lightly, because this is a matter which an all-party Select Committee has seriously considered. Even in that consideration an attempt was made, which did not succeed, to fob off the Select Committee when the action of the Government was likened to providing the money that may be required to purchase a work of art on behalf of the nation. This, however, is an entirely different situation to the position when a work of art becomes available and action has to be taken quickly. This is


an entirely different matter involving completely new expenditure to set up, not only a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate, but a large staff who, in the words of the Financial Secretary, will not be able to deal with any cases until Royal Assent is given to the Bill.
One can, perhaps, understand the attitude of Ministers who say, "This is an action which we must take. We want to ensure that all the wheels are oiled so that as soon as Parliament takes the last step, the whole machinery will already be in motion and we can move straight into action." That might be an excuse, but not even that excuse overrides the absolute necessity for Parliament to look very carefully at any suggestion which is brought forward by a Department, particularly at the time when Parliament is, in any event, still considering whether action of the kind which is contemplated should be taken.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could have an undertaking from the Minister that what has happened on this occasion would never be used in future as a precedent. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not give that assurance. Even if he were to give it, it would not be worth very much, because whatever assurance he gave this occasion would still be used as a precedent in future to show what Parliament had allowed to happen. It would, therefore, be another step down the slippery slope. For this reason, it is important that we in the House of Commons should make it clear to the Executive exactly what we feel about this action.
The whole question of the Parliamentary Commissioner began with everyone being given the impression that here was a great bomb which would go off and which would enable the ordinary citizens to have their grievances redressed. As time has gone by, however, we have seen that the Commissioner's powers are being diminished and yet further diminished, with the result that he certainly appears to me to be, not a great bomb, but rather a damp squib.
This matter is so important that we certainly should have the Leader of the House present during this debate so that he may be aware of the feelings of Parliament and so that we can, if necessary, be given a reply and undertakings from

a senior Minister, who obviously would be able to give us more of an answer than the Financial Secretary can tell us from the brief with which he has been provided about the payments for the Commissioner-designate.
We are interested not simply in the payments to the Parliamentary Commissioner designate while he is designate, because this is a completely new office. This, surely, is an opportunity when we should be able to ask what sort of duties the Commissioner is to carry out and whether our gloom is justified. I will not associate my hon. Friends with my feeling of gloom, but I certainly feel great gloom when one considers the promises that were made about the powers that the Parliamentary Commissioner would have and when one now realises that on the completion of the legislation he will have very limited powers indeed. We should thrash this question out.
My hon. Friend referred to the age-old right always demanded by Parliament of withholding Supply until grievances have been aired. Many people had hoped that the Commissioner would take away the need for us every year to spend a considerable time on airing grievances before granting Supply. I judge from my postbag that we shall still have these problems, because most of the problems that arise and which have been causing trouble to constituents will not be caught by the Commissioner's powers, even now. It seems that the only clear-cut case in which the Commissioner will be able to operate is if a civil servant somewhere makes a mistake. It appears that the Commissioner will be impotent as to ministerial decisions.
We should have a reply, not merely on the amount of money to be spent on the Commissioner-designate, but on the question of what will happen as the result of the operation of the Act and on the question whether the Commissioner's powers and work come anywhere near the great and brilliant promises which were made when the idea of the Commissioner was first mooted.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and Totnes (Mr. Mawby) have laid great stress on the constitutional right of the redress of grievance before the voting of Supply and have


mentioned this traditional Consolidated Fund day. We are told, as to the events of the last few days as the Bill has gone forward, that the Leader of the House has made threatening noises that, unless back benchers behave themselves, he will find some way of doing away with it.
If the Ombudsman is to be the new method of redress of grievance, he is indeed a very poor thing. This great tradition which we are enjoying today, this great right to be able to raise matters on behalf of our constituents, enables us twice a year, or thereabouts, to raise any matter which may affect the rights of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Bill, any right affecting something that is governed by the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Sir, but this is so wide that the Consolidated Fund Bill as a generality gives us this very great right; whereas this poor, miserable little functionary that the Government have pulled out of the bag will not even have the limited rights that we are enjoying today. It is to the uselessness of this functionary and the costliness of his office that I shall address my remarks.
All hon. Members, if asked what were the main sources of grumbling and genuine grievance on the part of their constituents, would reply that the bulk of complaints are, first, about local authorities, and in particular planning, and, secondly, about the nationalised industries. Neither of these two items will be covered by the Ombudsman. He is, therefore, a perfectly useless functionary. We are spending all this money to set up a preliminary office for him. It is money down the drain and window-dressing by the Prime Minister and the Government to keep an election pledge—and a very hollow election pledge it is.
Two items have come to my notice since the concept of the Ombudsman was mooted. First, the first constituent I ever saw after I was elected to the House eight years ago came to see me with a grievance. That grievance has rankled with that poor man from that day to this. I have been unable to help him, because his grievance is against a nationalised industry. He has raised the matter with me again, asking me to place it before the Ombudsman. How dis-

appointed he will be to learn that the Parliamentary Commissioner is no use to him whatever.
Secondly, I believe that every hon. Member has received a circular in the last few days about the difficulties experienced by disabled people in getting into certain public buildings. I think that the circular is signed by a Lady Hamilton. The grievance that this lady raises with us is a perfectly good and valid one. She asks us to bring to bear all the weight we can on planning authorities—again, local authorities. These are the people who spend vast sums of public money and whose dictatorial actions impinge upon the daily life of the citizen. What is the Ombudsman to them?—absolutely nothing.
The large sum of money which we are asked to vote today is a disgrace. It should be acknowledged by the Labour Party to be pure window-dressing for its last election pledges. Let the citizen beware of accepting promises from the Labour Party in future.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: We should consider very carefully the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner on this Vote, because this is an appointment which will cost the country a good deal of money, money which this Government say they can ill afford. They are making economies right, left and centre. They should start with this appointment.
This is an appointment which is not required by the people, if only they knew what it really meant. I do not suggest anything dishonest in the Government's action, but the office of Parliamentary Commissioner has been put forward as a means by which the citizen can obtain redress of grievances. It is nothing of the sort. It is a means by which Members of Parliament, if asked to do so, and if they think they should do so—I advisedly use those words—can refer questions to the Commissioner in respect of a number of Ministries and public bodies set out in Schedule 2 in the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill. Schedule 3 of that Bill refers to
Action taken by the Secretary of State under the…Fugitive Offenders Act 1881.
That reference will have to be amended, because there is a new Bill dealing with that subject.
I ask hon. Members to visualise the position in which Members of Parliament will find themselves if they conscientiously carry out their duty. On receiving a complaint from a constituent, with a request that it be forwarded to what the constituent will call the Ombudsman—a foreign word—if the Member takes the view that it would be a waste of time and public money to do so, he must be the person to tell the constituent—rightly, perhaps—"I shall do nothing of the sort". A Member of Parliament will be put into a difficult position, to start with. If the Member does not carry out his duties conscientiously but says to himself, "If my constituent wants it referred, I will refer it", the Commissioner will be flooded with a mass of trivial, stupid complaints which will occupy his time and that of his staff when they would be better employed upon other matters.
Even assuming that the Member does this, is it necessary? Do Members believe that they are frustrated in making their complaints, in discovering from Ministers of the day or from their Parliamentary Secretaries matters which they have raised, either of their own volition, or at the request of constituents?
I have been a Member for many years. I have raised a large number of matters at various times—some of them important, some of them small, some by letter, some by way of interview with Ministers. I have never been frustrated in learning the answers to the questions I have asked, nor have I felt on any occasion that there has been a conspiracy of silence on behalf of the Ministry concerned, through the Minister.
If I had felt that, like other Members I should have had plenty of procedures available—Adjournment debates, Questions, upon the occasion of this Bill or of the later Consolidated Fund Bill. There are plenty of procedures under which Members can raise such matters. I have no hesitation in saying, after many years in the House, that I have had the greatest of courtesy from Ministers of both parties and they have always done their best to provide me with the answers I have required.
I do not think that there is the slightest necessity for this Commissioner. He will cost the country with his staff, offices,

and so on, a good deal of money. I have not heard one Member, either in the debates on the relevant Bill or today, say, "I have had years of frustration. Ministries oyster up", to use a non-Parliamentary expression, "and do not give the information which a Member requires". Nothing of the sort. We have plenty of means to make Ministers disclose information, if necessary.
In fact, Members will be put in a very awkward position in considering whether they can comply with a constituent's request that a matter be raised with the Ombudsman. What will happen is that, through ignorance of the provisions of the Bill, of which the ordinary constituent can at once be excused, a lot of matters, particularly local planning matters and so forth which affect people very much, will be put to Members of Parliament, but constituents will not accept their Member's answer when he has to say, "Whether or not I would like to send this to the Parliamentary Commissioner, I cannot do so because it is one of the excepted matters into which the Parliamentary Commissioner may not inquire".
The Parliamentary Commissioner may not inquire, quite rightly, into Government policy, rates of taxation and so on. Otherwise, he would be acting as a Minister or Member, saying that Government policy was good or was bad. They can be only personal matters within a very restricted scope.
My view is that these arrangements will cost the country a lot of money. They will cause a lot of public dissatisfaction. They will cause a lot of dissatisfaction to Members of Parliament and put them in an awkward position. They will result in disclosures which inevitably will take a long time, producing answers which any Member could obtain from the Minister concerned, with the wide powers open to Members of Parliament already. It will take a very long time to find answers which a Member could find in a fraction of the time and at the cost of a few stamps or a few pieces of notepaper in putting down Questions.
I have no hesitation in saying, therefore, that the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill—it is still only a Bill—will cost the country a lot of money. It can be described only as window-dressing


for the party opposite. It will be quite ineffective, and I am sure that any Member of Parliament will feel that he will be no better able to serve his constituents by reason of it than he is now. I ask the Government not to press the expenditure of so much money for a purpose which is plainly unnecessary.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I follow the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) in the very reasonable argument which he has put on the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is absolutely right to focus attention on the difficulties which will confront Members of Parliament.
A constituent comes to his Member of Parliament and requires, as will seem to be his right, that a given matter should be presented to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Even though the Member is convinced that no useful result can flow from so doing, he will be put in difficulty in declining to take the action requested by his constituent. That is one objection. In addition, it will be exceedingly difficult to explain to many constituents that, although the Parliamentary Commissioner has surveillance over Ministers, he has no powers over nationalised industries or the local authorities, from which—let it be clearly stated—the abundance of complaints flow.
Fairness demands we should this afternoon propose a vote of thanks to the Leader of the House because, without his kindness and courtesy, we should not be here discussing the Bill at all. We should not be enjoying this renewed opportunity to apply our minds to these problems and, incidentally, not only to the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner but to any subject covered by these Supplementary Estimates. There are one or two others to which I hope to call attention later in my speech. However, I do not wish to move in too much hurry from the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner himself.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) rightly said, the Parliamentary Commissioner is a man who has attracted and earned the respect of the whole House. But, quite apart from the man, whose qualifications and distinction are not in question—indeed, we welcome the opportunity to

salute him—the office of Parliamentary Commissioner has been born in the most shoddy circumstances. It is taking a terribly long time—if I may use the expression the wrong way round—to make an honest woman of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He still exists in a state of sin which is to be lamented. Yet we are now asked to confirm the sum of £49,000 expended during the somewhat shadowy twilight existence of this one officer.
One wonders whether the Government are proud of their handling of the matter. The Prime Minister, conscious of a gap that there might be in the newspapers of the day or the intrusion of some undesirable matter, announced the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner. For the Prime Minister, the man who is there to uphold the rights of Parliament, this seemed a strange thing to do. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman feels that this new officer is badly needed because the rights and dignity of Parliament are not secure in the hands of Members. He is entitled to his own judgment, but what seemed particularly odd was that he should appoint the Parliamentary Commissioner without the agreement of Parliament. This came a little strangely from the man who is supposed to have a profound respect for Parliament and the need to protect its rights. One assumes that the Prime Minister was guided by one of his maxims, which could be freely translated as, "Any news is better than none, whether it be right and mature news or not".
We are asked to authorise expenditure the results of which we do not know. We have no yardstick to judge its merits because we have not had the opportunity to see someone who is virtually an officer of this House in performance of his functions and duties. The situation is absurd. Although I do not doubt that, if it is at all possible, the first incumbent of this office will justify himself and it, all one can say is that he has been introduced among us in a pretty shabby and discreditable way.
Before I sit down, I want to turn to one or two other points covered by the Supplementary Estimates which have caught my eye.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot prevent the hon. Gentleman from raising any


other matter on the Supplementary Estimates, but I called him at this stage in the debate because I thought that he wished to discuss this particular item.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order? I have no wish to intrude upon your Ruling or to act contrary to your advice, but, as I understand it, today's debate, unlike the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill the other day, is not subdivided. You have yourself said that this is a new Bill and a new occasion. However, if one speaks on the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner, one automatically exhausts one's right to speak on any other subject covered by the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Speaker: When I intervened a moment ago, I assured the hon. Gentleman of his rights. He is quite in order in speaking on other parts of the Supplementary Estimates. I indicated only that this was a debate on a particular Vote.

Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged for your help and guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to you for acknowledging my rights. I hope not to trespass over far, but there are one or two matters which I particularly wish to raise on other parts of the Supplementary Estimates which I shall have no opportunity to refer to later in the debate. They are matters of some importance.
On page 5 of the Supplementary Estimates there is an asterisk against Subheads B.20, B.23, F.13 and F.14 directing attention to a note on page 7 stating that
Any unexpended balances of the sums issued will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer".
The same point occurs later on page 38 under the general heading of the University Grants Committee. It is always interesting to find sentences of that sort in such a document, because they run so contrary to the normal Treasury doctrines and practice. It has always been a very self-defeating measure that the Treasury adopts when it requires the repayment of sums not expended during the financial year, because only too often the money is then spent in a terrible hurry on the garden or some unnecessary piece of work because people cannot bring themselves to hand money back and, as a consequence, face a reduction in the

Estimates for their expenditure in the following year. I invite the attention of the Financial Secretary to that point, and I congratulate him upon such sensible utterances made in such a document.
Nobody can say that such documents are voluble or over-liberal in the information they give, and the notes on them are even more parsimonious than one might expect after long experience. But I approve of the sort of sentiment expressed there, and I hope that perhaps the Treasury will follow that practice more often, with the idea of encouraging people not to waste money towards the end of the financial year rather than surrender it, and public authorities financed by the Government could well be encouraged to save.
I also wish to raise a point on the expenditure by the Ministry of Health, Class VI, Vote 14, on pages 24 and 25. The House's attention should be called to a reference on page 25 to:
Increased building costs owing to the effect of Selective Employment Tax and payment of a higher number of prior year balances than expected.
There is the echo of a great many speeches made from these benches with anger, indignation, and conviction during the Finance Bill debate last year; the confession that this rotten tax has done precisely what we said it would. It has singled out certain vital industries and has inflated their costs with the resultant and inevitable increased burden to the customer—in this case the Government and the taxpayer. It was always a tax without excuse or justification, unsupported by reason, and having in it that kernel of discrimination dear to the hearts of the Socialist Party but anathema to anybody who holds the principle of the liberty of the subject important or dear.
I also wish to raise a point on the question of capital expenditure on hospitals. I recognise that it is not within the immediate province of the Minister, but perhaps he would call it to the attention of such of his colleagues are appropriate. I have not given warning to the hon. Member whose constituency is concerned, and therefore, I merely state that in the south western region there is one city where a big hospital development is taking place and approval has now been given for speedway racing in a nearby stadium. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that large sums of public money


should be expended in this way and that then, apparently without serious consideration, permission should be given to carry out very nearby a really noisy activity calculated, almost deliberately one would have thought, to frustrate the very purpose for which a hospital exists, which is to promote the health and recovery of patients.

Mr. John Wells: Does that not exactly bring out the point, which several of our colleagues have already made, of the absolute uselessness of the Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner, in that he cannot take up planning grievances? If the Parliamentary Commissioner had been able to have a go at the local authority for their stupidity in this, would not the hospital to which my hon. Friend referred have been left in peace and quiet?

Mr. Peyton: I referred earlier to the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be very considerably inhibited, and I need no reminder, though I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Parliamentary Commissioner cannot interfere in the affairs of either local authorities or nationalised industries, nor can he take cognisance of planning decisions.
Incidentally, I feel that I shall not be straying too far if I observe that our present planning procedures are absurd in the extreme, and the kind of farce successive Ministers are called upon to go through by way of what is called an appeal, with the Minister acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, stretches words and sense far beyond what they can possibly bear even in the House of Commons.
I do not want to detain the House much longer. I have not raised those extra points out of any desire to waste the time of the House, or to cash in on or exploit an opportunity the Leader of the House was good enough to put on our plate. I entirely agree with and corroborate the feelings expressed by my hon. Friends on the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who seems to me to have been raised in gimmickry and not put forward as a thought out, considered, serious solution for the undoubted problems which come before Members in their relationships with Ministers.
We have a very valuable opportunity in confirming the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money. After all, what are thousands of £s today? We do not even shake our heads at thousands of millions of £s;why should we bother about just a few thousand £s expended on a man who has not yet really got a job? That is nothing. We can always afford to disregard a little matter like £49,000 which, after all, only belongs to somebody else. But that small sum of money has given us a valuable opportunity to call attention once again to what is, to my mind, a highly undesirable state of affairs, brought about, so far as I can see, by very improper motives prompting the actions of the Prime Minister in first making the appointment without bothering to get the approval and confirmation of the House of Commons, whom the Parliamentary Commissioner is intended to serve.
I am very glad to have had this chance to reinforce the objections, concern and suspicions felt by many of my hon. Friends.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I have listened with great interest to the sentiments expressed by hon. Members opposinte. During the Second Reading debates on the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill and later, as I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee, I too felt that the creation of the office was something which was looked for by the mass of the British public. But I also had certain reservations in that I felt that the duties to be delegated to the Parliamentary Commissioner would not, to any great extent, place him in the position of looking into the many grievances which are sometimes borne by many British subjects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear that approval.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is out of order in referring to matters which are not within the province of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is now referring to matters which should be, and that is out of order.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order. Can I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? A few


moments ago Mr. Speaker ruled that when we were discussing Supplementary Estimates and specifically the Parliamentary Commissioner an hon. Member was entitled to range fully over any subject covered by the Supplementary Estimates. We would like to know exactly what the position is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In general terms that is correct, but Clause 13 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill precludes discussion of matters affecting Northern Ireland when they are not the direct responsibility of the British Government, or of the Government of Northern Ireland acting as agent of the British Government.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has not mentioned Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: I deliberately refrained from mentioning Northern Ireland, knowing very well what your attitude would be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and what it has been during the course of the debate on the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appologise to the hon. Member if I have been precipitate in making remarks about Northern Ireland. We all know his interest in the subject. I did not intend any discourtesy.

Mr. Fitt: I will try to keep my remarks within order, in spite of the sentiments which I feel so strongly, by not particularly mentioning the constituency which I have the honour to represent, although that seems to be a somewhat farcical position.
Many hon. Members opposite have expressed concern because the terms of reference and the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner are far too limited. They have said that there will be many occasions when people from their constituencies will have grievances which the hon. Members concerned will be unable to bring before the Parliamentary Commissioner. In that I give them all the sympathy at my command, but how much better off are those hon. Members than I am! I represent 67,000 British subjects, subjects of Her Majesty the

Queen, and yet I cannot bring their grievances to the notice of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I am sure that, whatever their political complexions, hon. Members will sympathise with me in my attempt to get for my constituents what other hon. Members have obtained for theirs, little though that may be.
Clause 13 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill is open to violent contradiction. Subsection (1) says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act extends to Northern Ireland
but subsection (2) says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the inclusion among the departments and authorities to which this Act applies of any department of the Government of Northern Ireland…
The contradiction is apparent, because first the Clause says that the Bill does apply to Northern Ireland and then it goes on to say that it does not.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of order. This is very entertaining and I should like to join the fun. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) appears to be arguing a Committee point, which is whether the Bill should be extended, other than it already extends, to Northern Ireland. Shall we be in order in pursuing that topic?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to make it clear that I am listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, West with great care. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) must leave it to the Chair to decide when a speech is outside the bounds of order. So far the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not outside those bounds.

Captain Orr: Further to that point of order. I am not in any way trying to inhibit the hon. Member. All I want to do is to safeguard my right of reply.

Mr. Fitt: I am anxious to abide by your Rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but once again it has been made obvious, even during the few remarks which I have had the opportunity to make this afternoon, that an attempt is being made to limit my remarks. I will proceed with my interpretation of the Clause.
Subsection (1) says that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and subsection


(2) says that it does not. However, subsection (2) goes on to say:
but this Act shall apply to any department or authority, in relation to any action taken by them as agent for a department or authority to which this Act applies, as it applies to the last-mentioned department or authority.
In other words, the Parliamentary Commissioner will be open to receive complaints about matters concerning defence, Income Tax and the Post Office in Northern Ireland, but that will be the limit of his powers in Northern Ireland. There may be occasions when the power of the Northern Ireland Government and that of the Imperial Government are inter-related and in such cases the Parliamentary Commissioner would be able to go so far in his inquiries, but those inquiries would be stopped once they extended into a Northern Ireland Departmental problem.
To say the least, this is a most unworkmanlike proposal and means that once an inquiry overlaps into the province of the Northern Ireland Government, it must come to a full stop. That seems to be defeating the ends of justice and the whole intention behind the Bill.

Captain Orr: On a point of order. I want to make certain just how far I shall be able to go in reply to this argument. The hon. Member has said that in certain respects in which the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland it is unworkmanlike, and he has used other epithets. If this line of argument is in order, I want to make certain that I shall have the same latitude as the hon. Gentleman if I think that anything he says requires reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he will have exactly the same latitude as has been given to the hon. Member. I point out to the hon. Member for Belfast, West, as I did earlier, perhaps a little in advance of the moment, that he is treading rather warily and that he can raise matters only if they are within the province of this Government or of the Northern Ireland Government acting as agent for the British Government. He is now beginning to argue whether these powers should be extended. I think that he ought to come a little nearer to order.

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order. It has already been ruled by Mr. Speaker that in this debate we are entitled to

raise the grievances of the subject in general as well as in particular terms, that it is the purpose of this debate to raise questions of Supply and not just grievances of the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is perfectly correct, except that the debate must be confined within the limits of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill—matters within the province of the British Government or of the Government of Northern Ireland acting as agent for the British Government.

Mr. Fitt: I think that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that before I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, who, for some reason which I cannot discern, seems this afternoon to be the most annoyed man in the House, I was pursuing a valid line of reasoning.

Captain Orr: I am not annoyed in the sense that it would be normally understood in this House. Those who understand Northern Ireland colloquialism may put a different interpretation upon the word "annoyed". In fact I am delighted to hear the hon Gentleman. I am merely—

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: On a point of order. Is Northern Ireland colloquialism in order in this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Fitt.

Mr. Fitt: I was asking the Financial Secretary about the reasoning embodied in Clause 13, which permits the Parliamentary Commissioner to make inquiries in Northern Ireland, where the function is carried out by the British Government, such as Income Tax, defence and postal services. But where two Departments, a Northern Ireland Government Department and a Department of this Government are involved, and this is quite possible, does this then mean that the Parliamentary Commissioner can only inquire into the Department controlled by the British Government? This means that if, on reaching a conclusion in an investigation, the Commissioner wishes to proceed further, he will be prevented from doing so.
Most hon. Members have called for an extension of the powers of the Commissioner, and have said that those given


to him at present may not be sufficient to protect the interests of an aggrieved constituent. However, Members of Parliament already have these powers. I can see you looking at me Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not going into this any further. All that I would say is that the British Labour Government, having been elected in 1964, by the will of the vast majority of the people in these islands, thought in their wisdom that it was important to bring such a Bill before the House. In their endeavours they certainly have had my support and the support of my constituents.
I cannot understand why any hon. Member would wish to deny to his constituents the provisions, meagre though they be, and the rights and protection contained in this Bill. In Committee, I attempted to get Northern Ireland included, but I failed and one and a half million of Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland are not being treated as British subjects, and are sadly disappointed.

4.53 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am sorry that the House should be inflicted with this pleasant interlude. I could not help but admire, as no doubt you did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and the skill with which he managed to produce at least even the skeleton of an argument as to why the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill should have been extended to Northern Ireland. It shows that his experience, as a Member of two Parliaments, has stood him in good stead.

Mr. Fitt: And the Belfast Parliament.

Captain Orr: That is certainly a Parliament of a sort.
There are one or two cases, to be fair, where the responsibilities of Ministers between here and Northern Ireland, overlap. Occasionally there are grey areas when it is not absolutely certain where final responsibility lies. In that respect the hon. Member was on a valid point and perhaps the Minister can say something about this.
I understand from what you have said to the hon. Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

that I will not be able to deploy an argument of any great length on the general question, and I content myself with saying that the views of the hon. Member about the opinions of people in Northern Ireland and the application of the Bill are as inaccurate as his assertion that the party opposite was elected by a majority of the British people.

4.55 p.m.

Sir John Foster: In a sense, this is a sad Vote because of the very limited way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers have been drawn. It is also a disappointing Vote because the genesis of this institution was that it was first raised by Professor Lawson and some academics, and was then recommended by Justice, of which the Minister was a distinguished member. The Conservative Party, unfortunately, indicated a certain amount of opposition, and I was always prepared to vote against the party if it had persisted in this, but common sense prevailed.
We now have a Bill limited to Members of the House of Commons. That is a disappointing limitation, and a lot of what I consider to be spurious arguments have been advanced, saying that the Parliamentary Commissioner will fulfil the tasks of the back benchers, and that if one has a Parliamentary Commissioner able to look into grievances not put through the House of Commons, the back benchers' powers would be usurped. I do not believe that any of these arguments are valid. The Member of Parliament will be placed in very great difficulty as a result of having to deal with the grievances.
A constituent may write and say that he wants a grievance remedied by the Member, or he may say that he wishes the grievance to go at once to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Assume that the Member is strong minded and does not mind telling the constituent that he is talking nonsense, if he is doing so. Let us assume that; but in many cases can the hon. Member be so certain of his own judgment as to say that this is a grievance not within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner?
One reads the debates in Committee and sees that there were lots of points very much on the edge of the subject


and also points which were at the discretion of the Parliamentary Commissioner. One might have a very good case for saying that the Commissioner would not exercise his discretion in a certain instance, but a Member of Parliament cannot be certain. If the Member refuses to send the grievance to the Ombudsman, a constituent may write to another Member of Parliament complaining about this, and he may have a perfectly good case.
There may be a Member of the House seeking to increase his little empire, who wanted notoriety, or to make an appeal as a public figure. He may say, "I have engaged 10 secretaries and three lawyers; everyone send your grievances to me and I will process them. I will be the most efficient fellow in the House of Commons to deal with your grievances, because they will be pre-packaged." Even if the Member does not go to that extent, some Members may get a reputation for putting grievances to the Ombudsman better than others. Just as people prefer some doctors and specialists, they may prefer a Member who specialises in certain grievances
Therefore, constituents are not bound, rightly, to go to their own Member of Parliament. They may well shop around and choose the most likely Member to put their grievance in the best way to the Ombudsman. That is very undesirable. The Danish Ombudsman can deal not only with grievances from anybody, but with grievances which no one has put before him and which he thinks worthy of inquiry. Sometimes the victims of injustice are not vocal. There may be an understanding between two parties who decide something and the injustice falls on the silent third party.
It is with sorrow that I see this Vote. It is disappointing to support a Vote the extent of which is so small. I expect that hon. Members have read the article in the Economist, which has always been a great supporter of the Ombudsman. It said that the Vote was hardly worth supporting. I do not believe that that is so. Le mieux est l'enemi du bien. I very much hope that the Government will realise after a short time that the limitations put on the office of Parliamentary Commissioner are such that they deprive his office of much of the good which it could have done.
It is perhaps understandable that some members of the Civil Service do not want this kind of interference. I believe that the Conservative Party received a good many expressions of opinion about that when it was in power. If the system were wider, the members of the Civil Service would realise that it was a protection for them and that a method of settling grievances is better for the Civil Service as a whole and certainly for the government of the country.

5.3 p.m.

Sir John Eden: There is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has said, but I was tempted earlier to believe that there is nothing to replace effectively the alert constituency Member of Parliament. However, I realise that there are, and could conceivably become, areas in which he would wish to call upon the support of someone who could give more effective scrutiny in greater depth than he would be able to give. In these circumstances, I would go a long way with those who advocate the establishment of the Commissioner if his duties were more wide-ranging. Like many of my hon. Friends, I regret that he will be so circumscribed as to be of comparatively little assistance to those who wish to bring their special cases to his attention.
Before commenting further on the general point, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for breaking the ice and showing other hon. Members that it is within order during this debate to discuss all subjects raised by the Supplementary Estimates. It is right that hon. Members should have this clearly in mind, for, although it has been so ordered for the convenience of Ministers that certain subjects shall be taken in an agreed order of batting, I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no hon. Member fortunate enough to catch your eye should feel himself confined to the subject which at that time had come to the head of the list. It is right that hon. Members should be reminded of this.
I remember times in the past when during similar debates my hon. Friends and I on the then Government back benches took the opportunity whenever it occurred to press our own Front Bench
for a greater amount of information. This is what we are about today. This debate is primarily about the control expenditure. We should have more debates about controlling expenditure. We should have many more debates threatening, and meaning what we say when we threaten, the Treasury that it will not get the enormous sum of money for which it asks unless we have a full explanation about why it wants it.
I am aware, as must be all hon. Members, of the enormous pressures on our constituents of the punitive rates of taxation to which they are being subjected as a result of the Government's policies. Any increase in expenditure by this Government should be thoroughly and closely examined by every hon. Member. He would be doing a far greater service to his constituents by doing that than could be done by any actions of the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate or whoever may follow him in line of succession.

Mr. Dance: In view of what my hon. Friend has been saying, with which I entirely agree, would he say that one of the first duties of the Ombudsman should be to inquire into the expenditure of £49,000 before he even began functioning?

Sir J. Eden: I do not know whether that is the case of the chicken or the egg, and I do not know where he came into the picture, but I agree with the implications of my hon. Friend's comment. A point which was admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was that it was most extraordinary that the Commissioner, whose primary job is to protect the interests of the citizens of this country against the marauding instincts of the Executive, should have been appointed in a manner wholly contrary to the interests of the taxpayers. I hope that we shall hear some justification from the Minister as to why this was thought necessary.
I see from the Sixth Special Report the observations of the Treasury on the comments made by hon. Members who served the House on the Estimates Committee. They came to the conclusion in paragraph 15 that it would be wrong, in view of the distinguished officer who had been appointed Parliamentary Commissioner-designate, to withhold the

money to be voted in this case. This indicates how close they came to doing just that. I wish that they had done so and that they had decided that there was no justification for passing this Vote. It still lies within hon. Members' power to come to just that conclusion.

Mr. Hamling: Try it.

Sir J. Eden: I am happy to try it, and that is what I am doing. I invite the hon. Member's support—that is, if he is in any way interested in trying to protect his constituents from increasing taxation.
The Estimates Committee went on to say that it hoped that the procedure adopted in this case would not be allowed to pass without protest and that it would not be used by the Executive as a precedent. But the Treasury, when making its observations on this point, called in aid a number of earlier instances when it claimed that this procedure had been adopted. I quote from the Sixth Special Report from the Estimates Committee at the bottom of page 3, where it says
The Treasury do not consider that the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund in this case departs from long-standing practice governing its use as explained to the House on a number of occasions, e.g. statements by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 3rd March, 1925 (Mr. Guinness), and by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 12th July, 1963…
I looked up those cases, and I have them here. The first referred to the statement made by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Guinness, who, in col. 276 and 277 of HANSARD of 3rd March, 1925, set out the purposes for which the Civil Contingencies Fund could be used. It says quite clearly—and this is the point to which I at once face up in connection with this vote—that:
The Civil Contingencies Fund provides a sum…to meet payments for miscellaneous services not appropriate to any separate or specific Vote of Parliament, and to make advances where necessary to meet deficiencies on existing Votes or for new services, in anticipation of Votes of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1925; Vol. 181, c. 276.]
I believe I am doing justice to the Financial Secretary's case when I say that it has been claimed that this is a new service and that before the end of the financial year it was required to pay the necessary advance moneys


required out of the Civil Contingencies Fund.
Lest this is thought to be a precedent which may be followed in the future, I take some comfort from the words—and I ask hon. Members to look at these words—spoken by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), on 12th July, 1963. I quote from col. 1688 of HANSARD of that date, in which he said that in the fifth category of the various categories for which this Fund may be used:
…advances may be made on account of new services where the need for expenditure arises too late for a supplementary estimate to be presented within the same financial year".
My right hon. Friend then went on to qualify this—this is extremely important —or, rather, to describe the sort of circumstances in which this sort of situation might arise or had arisen in the past. He said:
This is a question of timing rather than of a new category of expenditure. An example, perhaps, is the emergency expenditure which resulted from the floods of January, 1953, which will be within the recollection of the House…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1688–9.]
This put a totally different gloss on the situation. My right hon. Friend was then, in his extremely responsible position, making it perfectly clear that he saw the operation of this procedure as an exceptional circumstance. He saw it as something which would be justified only in a sort of emergency situation, of which he gave the House at that time one or two examples.
By no stretch of the imagination can the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate be likened in any way to an emergency situation such as was described by my right hon. Friend. There is a very clear case here on which we want a completely frank answer from the Treasury Front Bench when the hon. and learned Gentleman replies.

Sir J. Foster: Can it not also be said that there was no demand for this new service? If there had been a demand for people to have Ombudsmen treatment, there would have been an emergency and a new service, but the appointment of a man who will be doing something only after the Supplementary Estimates are passed cannot possibly come in that category.

Sir J. Eden: That is a valid point. It is further strengthened in my mind by the knowledge that there was no great and continuing public outcry for the creation overnight of a Parliamentary Commissioner. This is not something which animated people in the constituencies, or which occasioned a great deal of speechifying by hon. Members up and down the country. I do not know how many hon. Members even referred to it in their election addresses. One or two may have done, but comparatively few did. This was not something to which the Government were particularly wedded. They brought it in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said, as a piece of political window dressing at the time, as a means of convenience to get out of some embarrassing situation which looked like flooding the headlines of the newspapers to the disadvantage of the Prime Minister. They wanted something to distract the country.

Mr. William Molloy: The speech of the hon. Gentleman was interesting until he dived into the political propaganda side of it. Whilst it seems to me that Members of the Conservative Party have always been making sly digs at administrators and civil servants, and saying what horrid people they are without identifying them, we on our side have also acknowledged that there is a danger for the administration, so to speak, to take over from Parliament. The big argument that went on within the Labour Party was that there should be someone to whom an ordinary backbencher could submit a case, without or, perhaps, in addition to appealing to Ministers during Question Time or by using an Adjournment debate. It is a pity to spoil a good argument, on a matter which has concerned Members on both sides of the House, by dragging in ridiculous political points, as the hon. Gentleman has done.

Sir J. Eden: Despite the hon. Gentleman's gratuitous comments, I might have had greater sympathy for his remarks had he shown a greater degree of concern over the encroachment of individual civil liberties by the power of the Executive. We are concerned here with the arbitrary decision of the Executive to anticipate the decision of the House. They have done this in a manner which necessitated the expenditure of public


money. They have resorted to this device in order to draw on the funds provided for other purposes, and not for a purpose such as this, as I have sought to describe. If we are to have a new office of this nature, with a Parliamentary Commissioner and his staff, we are entitled to have a pretty clear idea of the ultimate expenditure which is likely to be involved.
We are asked in this Vote to grant the sum of £49,000, to meet the salary of the Commissioner designate and the salaries, etc. of his staff, for the period up to the year ending 31st March, 1967. That is a very short time. I should have liked to have had written in clearly, so that every hon. Member could see it, the anticipated expenditure of the Parliamentary Commissioner when he ceases to be designate and becomes fully fledged. To what extent is his office likely to grow? If we are being called upon to pass initial expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money, should we not have clearly in our minds the total expenditure likely to be involved in a full year, and the manner in which this expenditure is likely to grow in the future? It must be that in the experience of every hon. Member that once a new Department has been created, no matter what it is called or whatever its main purpose may be, like Topsy it grows and grows, not necessarily in efficiency, but certainly to the increasing disadvantage of the interest of taxpayers. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a clear answer on this point.

Mr. Webster: May I remind my hon. Friend that when the Money Resolution was discussed on 18th October the Financial Secretary said that the expenditure would probably

"be within the £200,000 figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966 ; Vol. 734, c. 174.]

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who, as usual, has been assiduous in his researches and has done a great deal in bringing this matter to the attention of the House in the first place to serve the interests of every hon. Member. It would, however, have come much better from the Treasury had it been made abundantly clear in the Vote, in the

document which is now before us, exactly what the expenditure in a full year is likely to be and what stages of growth are expected. We are most concerned, as, I believe, is the Treasury, to ensure proper control of expenditure. This means full and complete disclosure by the Government and by every public Department associated with them which is dependent in any way upon the taxpayer's money.
I am tempted to go further through the Supplementary Estimates as contained in publication No. 227, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of Sub-heads or Votes. I will content myself by mentioning just one which causes me more concern almost than anything else. I refer to Clause IV, Sub-head 17, an increase of £15 million to be paid by way of grant to the British Railways Board.
If anything needs a thorough shake-up and overhaul, it is the British Railways administration and the Railways Board and everything that goes with them. Here we are blandly being asked to fork out another £15 million of the taxpayer's money for a service which already costs him hundreds of millions of £s. I regard this as wholly indefensible, and I expect to get proper justification for this demand from the Government Front Bench.
I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies, the House will be given a clear answer about the reasons why it was found necessary and urgent to appoint the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take particular note of what was said by the Estimates Committee in its Fifth report. I ask hon. Members to note that this was the Report of the Estimates Committee, which is appointed by this House, comprising hon. Members of the House who report back to the House. The Estimates Committee said at paragraph 15:
They therefore consider that, before the Supplementary Estimate is passed, a clear undertaking should be given on behalf of the Government that the action taken in this case will not be used as a precedent to justify similar abuses of proper constitutional processes in the future.
We want that clear undertaking from the Financial Secretary. We have not had it yet. We have not had anything approximating to it in the Sixth Special


Report, which was the Treasury's observations, and I hope that we get it before the House is prepared to pass this Vote.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: We have had an interesting debate this afternoon and we are all grateful to the Government and to my right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House for this opportunity for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) to get some of the passion off his chest and to give an opportunity of speaking to one or two other hon. Members who were conspicuous by their absence when this subject should have been raised the other morning—unlike myself. I was here.
I hope that I am not out of order in drawing attention to the zeal of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who was present the other night to raise this important subject. It is rather surprising that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition should now claim credit for counting out the House and thus preventing his hon. Friend from raising the subject on that occasion.

Sir J. Eden: May I assure the hon. Member that we give full credit to his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary for his incompetence and inability to keep a House in support of Government business?

Mr. Hamling: From the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, I was not aware that that was entirely the case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must come to the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Webster: Had the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House both been present the other night, there would have been a quorum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) to come to the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Hamling: In reply to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, there

would still have been only 39 hon. Members present.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Hamling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for ensuring that at least I get a slightly bigger audience than I had before.
We have been discussing this afternoon the important question of the function of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the action of the Government in putting into these Estimates a sum of £49,000. It was, no doubt, right and proper that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West should call for proper control of expenditure, but this comes ill from the mouths of some right hon. and hon. Members opposite when one remembers some of their own previous extravagances. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blue Streak."] That was something like £400 million, was it not? Here they are complaining about £49,000.

Mr. Molloy: And Suez.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, we must not forget that.
The hon. Member said that there had been no outcry for this appointment. That, again, is a rather surprising statement when one looks up the record of Questions from right hon. and hon. Members opposite over the last two years clamouring for a Government announcement about when we would have the Bill and when a Parliamentary Commissioner would be appointed. They were the very people who clamoured in this House for the appointment. In all the postbags of right hon. and hon. Members, there have for a long time been inquiries about when this important official would be appointed to deal with grievances.
The remarkable thing is that I have never yet had anyone in my constituency —and neither, to my knowledge, has any of my hon. Friends in theirs—saying that this was not a proper appointment to make. The only criticism has been some rather doubtful criticism that has come up today.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Does not the hon. Member think that for this


expenditure, even now, it is disturbing that no thought is being given to the Ombudsman dealing with nationalised industries?

Mr. Hamling: That is only one point. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) could point out quite adequately that there is a far more crying scandal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate must be confined to matters concerning the Supplementary Estimates and not to other matters to which they might apply in other circumstances.

Mr. Hamling: With a certain amount of humility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make this submission to you. We are talking about the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is one of the matters which has been subjected to question during this debate. It has been one of the main reasons why the Opposition have objected to the Government putting in this sum, as the Opposition have not been told so they say, of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner, or that his powers have been limited. I think that, in reply to that, it is quite reasonable for me to point out another limitation on those powers. I hope, therefore, that in this argument I may be permitted to go on to make my point, which is, that a far more serious limitation on the powers of the Commissioner is in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West was saying in his very interesting speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I ought to try to help the hon. Member. He may refer to those matters, but he certainly ought not to go into them in detail. I gave some latitude to his hon. Friend, but it is a limited amount of elbow room.

Mr. Hamling: That is precisely what I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you may have noted that I did not refer in detail to what my hon. Friend said. I merely referred to it in very general terms—and, I hope, general terms of approval ; as always, because my hon. Friend always makes a very good speech and always a very entertaining speech, as, no doubt, the hon and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will agree. It was a very right speech, too, today, and with that

also, no doubt, the hon. and gallant Member will agree.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made what I thought was a perfectly proper point for this debate, that the House ought to question the granting of supply before the Bill becomes law. That is, I think, a perfectly proper point, but I would put this submission to him, that if the Government had not made this provision, and the Parliamentary Commissioner were appointed, with no supply having been granted, that would at once have been a source of a major complaint from the Opposition. They would at once have started to argue, "Here we have again an example of the Government's incompetence. An appointment has been made for a Commissioner, but there are no offices for him, and no provision has been made for him to do his very important public work." I can well imagine the cries of "Shabby" and "Shoddy" which would have come from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—that no proper provision had been made for dealing with the grievances of the subject. Yet here they are complaining today just because the Government have perfectly properly made provision.

Mr. Webster: The complaint is not that provision is made but that no grievance is being redressed.

Mr. Hamling: Grievances will be redressed. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that when that Bill becomes law grievances will be redressed. They will be, indeed. This again, is an example of the very narrow, limited, shortsighted, and curiously crabbed minds that we have on the Opposition benches. Here we have a reform. It may be limited, and I have pointed out that it does not affect Northern Ireland as it should. But here we have a very good, if limited, reform, and the crabby people on the Opposition benches complain that it does not do this and that it does not do that, and therefore they are opposed to it. Did they never, in all their long Parliamentary record when they were in power, introduce perhaps an odd little reform which they commended to the House, saying, "This is a modest reform; it may not fulfil all the demands of the House, but, nevertheless it will go a long


way towards meeting the grievances of Her Majesty's subjects"?

Mr. Richard Sharpies: The hon. Member is giving the impression that we on this side opposed that Bill. We did not, of course. The Bill received an unopposed Third Reading.

Mr. Hamling: We have really caught a big fish. Having listened to all the speeches, and having heard what the hon. Member for Yeovil called that Bill—"shoddy", he called it; "shabby", he called it; "discreditable", he called that Bill—I must say it is extraordinary that the Opposition now say they support it. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who, unfortunately, has been called out to answer a telephone call—his absence is not due to discourtesy—also went into what were really—

Mr. Molloy: Paroxysms of rage.

Mr. Hamling: —paroxysms of rage, indeed, because, he said, it was a bad Bill. Yet now we have an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, who is now being reminded of what somebody did say, stating that it is a good Bill and the Opposition support it. But not until Third Reading. Are they not funny? They really are.
We have had a very interesting debate and we have had one or two interesting debating points from the Opposition, but I would return to what I said earlier: what would the Opposition have said if the Government had not made this provision? "Another broken promise", as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) remarks. That Bill has been debated and accepted by the House; it is a Bill which is called for in the country; several of my constituents have already written to me on this matter with approval, hoping that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be appointed as quickly as possible. I hope that, with the support of the other place, we shall have the Commissioner appointed very soon, and going to work.

5.36 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I am very disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. We often have very valuable contributions from him, but he did not really seem to me to have his eye on the ball at all. I should like, briefly, to support my hon.

Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on what is the real point, as I see it, in this discussion, and it is this. We have an Estimates Committee. May I pause for a moment to say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who intervened a little earlier, that I would hope we would have his assistance. This is not at all a party matter. We are supporting the Estimates Committee, which is a non-party organisation, essentially composed of back benchers, and particularly interested in maintaining the individual rights of Members of this House. That Estimates Committee has pointed out here that the Government have done something which is quite unprecedented.
The precedents which the Treasury has so assiduously produced do not at all justify what has been done, because it has only suggested that this Commissioner comes under the heading of a new service. But there is no new service. The appointment of the Ombudsman does not create a service. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), he has tried, with ingenuity, to suggest to people that the Ombudsman is already functioning—he did so, I will not say in the hope, but certainly rather on the assumption, that they will think that the ombudsman is already functioning—as a result of the promptness with which this money was found. It was done four or five months ago.
The fact of the matter is that this is a new precedent, which, apparently, Whitehall would like to have established, and the Estimates Committee does not think they should. If ever there was a moment when I should have thought the back benchers of all parties should have stood firmly behind the Estimates Committee against the Executive, whether of their party or not, this, I should have thought, would have been the occasion for it.
It is a remarkable thing that there has not been more indignation expressed. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North would have been one of the people who would have been with us in this. There are no Liberals here to deal with the matter at all. One would have supposed this to have been the kind of thing they would have been interested in. If ever there was


justification for this kind of debate, this is the very sort of point for it.
But the hon. Gentleman said that nobody has expressed any concern about this unusual and irregular thing being done—the expenditure of public money on something which has not yet been approved, as a matter of law. When he says that, I do not agree with him at all. I have heard quite a lot. In addition, I read in several newspapers at the time strong comment on the very airy way in which the Prime Minister brushed it off.
There are people in this country quite apart from politics who are afraid that there is a growing tendency on the part of this Government to become dictatorial. This is an opportunity to point out to them that, irrespective of party differences, we do not wish the Executive to become more dictatorial. There have been examples of it in a number of directions which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to detail now. There was the attitude of Ministers during the discussions that we had on the Finance Bill and the Selective Employment Tax when, time after time, good, reasoned arguments were made and not answered at all, when Ministers simply said, "We have decided to do this, and it is going through".
This is a stage further. We have not even got it through Parliament. Ministers say, "But what does it matter? It is going through, so let us alter the rules accordingly". Before long, we shall find that things are done without an Act of Parliament at all. Indeed, they were when, at the beginning of the prices and incomes era we were told, "There will be legislation, so people had better do what they are told".
This is the moment when back benchers ought to sit up and realise what is going on. I am astonished that hon. Members supporting the Government should not have appreciated what a Report of this kind from our Estimates Committee means. Here we have an all-party Committee making a serious recommendation about a precedent which the Treasury shows by its own language that it wants to establish, which is a new and dangerous precedent and something to which we ought to object. I should have thought that it was the sort of case where we would expect a Minister to apologise to

the House for having done something which was unwarranted, because that is what it is. That is what I hope that we shall hear.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: Listening to the contribution from the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), it occurred to me that we had come more or less to the nub of the Opposition's complaint. The whole character of the presentation—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: May I point out to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that it is not the complaint of the Opposition but of the all-party Estimates Committee, of which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is Chairman?

Mr. Molloy: It is my understanding that hon. Members opposite are supporters of the Opposition.
As I was saying, it seems to me that the Opposition are concerned about this whole business for one single reason. The recommendation and the ultimate creation of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner is new. Nothing is more irritating and annoying to any Conservative than something which is new.

Mr. Hamling: Would not my hon. Friend regard this as an example of singular incompetence on the part of the Opposition? Here they want to raise a matter of fundamental criticism of the Government which they were going to raise through a back bencher at 3 o'clock the other morning, without a Motion.

Mr. Molloy: I do not deny the right of any back bencher from either side to criticise the Government if the Opposition feel, as is their right, that they can do much better in challenging the Government from the back benches than from the Front Benches.
As I see it, the argument is that if there had been no preparation for the creation of this new service, the Government would have faced the challenge, "What sort of planning is this? What sort of preparation have you done?" It is not possible, overnight, to create a department which will play a very


important rôle in our society. It will make a contribution to defending the individual which, as I have always understood it, is one of the main planks of Conservative argument.
They would have charged the Government, quite rightly, "Why did you not take steps to see to it that, when the new service is ready, it can go into operation as swiftly as possible?" It does not matter for which way the Government had opted. As far as the Opposition are concerned, they would have been in the wrong.
There is another attitude which we have to examine. If, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has said, in principle the Opposition have supported the idea. the sort of arguments that we have heard have been so wide ranging that they have really been criticisms of the entire concept. The argument concerning the appointment of the particular individual and the Estimates Committee's Report itself has merely been the hook on which to criticise the whole concept and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for the Opposition to say that they were only attacking the fact that the Government acted and made some appointment before the House had gone into the matter.
I am quite sure that time will show that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will take full advantage of the service which the Parliamentary Commissioner will create. I hope that they will.

Mr. Hamling: They will.

Mr. Molloy: 7 hey will be forgetting all the ugly things which they have been saying today.
If the Opposition were honest with themselves, they would admit that what has irritated them is that they would have loved to be on record as saying that, had they won the last General Election, they would have instituted such a Measure. All the raucousness and irritation that we have heard today is due to the fact that the Opposition, quite frankly, are jealous of many of the things which the Government have been doing in all their spheres of activity. One in particular which has irritated them is that this so-called wicked Socialist Government has introduced a Measure primarily designed

to see that the individual is safeguarded from any threat that might emanate from the Administration.

Mr. Hamling: Has my hon. Friend not had letters from people in Tory-held constituencies complaining that, because their Members are so incompetent, they are eagerly awaiting the appointment of the Commissioner to deal with their grievances?

Mr. Molloy: That might very well be so. However, I should like now to risk making the point—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With all the good humour in the world, a very serious observation has been made. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) suggested that hon. Members of this House had been criticised personally in letters to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for not carrying out their Parliamentary duties. That was brushed aside rather lightly by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who said that that might well be so. Either it is so or it is not. If it is so, it should be acknowledged and substantiated. If it is not so, it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point for the Chair.

Sir J. Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to Erskine May, is it not out of order to call a Member of the House of Commons incompetent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is not out of order to call a Member of the House of Commons incompetent.

Mr. Hamling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If any remark of mine caused offence to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I hasten to say that I was certainly not referring to him or to any other right hon. or hon. Gentleman whom I see in front of me.

Mr. Molloy: Perhaps we can move on from discussion of whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are competent. I wish to ask the Minister seriously if he will consider some of the points which I wish to raise about many of Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland.
A very serious situation will arise there, one which I think will concern us all. Some of our constituents, not necessarily people from Northern Ireland, who live in Ealing, or in Bournemouth, may have need of the Parliamentary Commissioner for something which has been threatened or done to them in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that the Bill will not apply in such circumstances, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will seriously consider this matter. To prevent this serious situation arising, with all its considerable complexities, the best thing that the Government can do is to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the Parliamentary Commissioner and the entire office that he represents embraces Northern Ireland.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I rise to deplore the fact that there seems to be no reference in these Estimates to the need for establishing in Wales an office for the Ombudsman. After all, this is a multi-national State. We have here not just one nation but four, and I think it right that every nation which belongs to this confraternity of nations in the United Kingdom should have the institutions established by this Government. If we have it, certainly Northern Ireland should have it. If we had a Government of our own in Wales, we would certainly have this institution.
New Zealand is smaller than Wales in population, and less wealthy, and yet she has a flourishing institution of this kind. We should certainly have one in Wales, but, as I say, there seems to be no provision for this in the Estimates, not even for the establishment of an office in Wales to carry out the duties of this official.
We have a national background. We have a different culture. We have a national language, which I am not allowed to speak in this Chamber, but which will be the subject of legislation here before long. This means that there are problems in Wales which are peculiar to Wales, and we should have this institution to deal with such problems in our own country. I think that this applies not only to Wales, but to Northern Ireland and Scotland, where, even if a different language is not spoken by a large proportion of the population,

at least there is a different law, and it therefore seems right to me that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should as nations have this institution in their own right.
What provision is there in the Estimates to secure in Wales people who are competent in the Welsh language to translate from English to Welsh and from Welsh to English for this purpose? I think that we need a corps of translators to do justice to this kind of institution.
I see from the Estimates that a sum of £15 million is voted for transport. What is this for, and how much of it is to be used in Wales where we are in need of the greatest possible expenditure on railway transport? Our railway system is almost being destroyed. What is this money for? Is it to help the electrification of lines in England which are now being planned, although it is known beforehand that they will lose millions of £s per year? Or is it perhaps to help to bring the railways of England closer to the heart of England? This is the widely advertised aim of British Railways. Apparently they are at last bringing the railways of England to the heart of England. It is high time that they were brought closer to the heart of Wales, where the country is almost denuded of railways. I therefore ask the Minister to say whether this money will be used for this purpose in Wales, and whether it will be used to develop a railway system which will be adequate to our economic and social needs.

5.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): rose—

Mr. Sharpies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the intervention of the Financial Secretary at this stage does not mean that there will be any attempt to bring this debate to a conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has been here for more than two hours waiting to take part in this debate. May we have an assurance that there is no question of the debate being concluded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. Any hon. Member who rises can attempt to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. When the Closure was previously moved on this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) had just made an extremely interesting speech about E.L.D.O. and the Minister had got to his feet to reply. Are we not to hear his reply? It is all very well for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that someone may catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. It may be that the Patronage Secretary will do that. He is very large but not very handsome. I could catch your eye, so could he, and if the latter were to happen our rights would be seriously curtailed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are purely hypothetical, and I call Mr. Nial MacDermot.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I made a series of very serious charges against the Government. I asked that the grievances which I put forward should be answered before we voted Supply. Surely it is in the interests of the Government themselves to seek an opportunity to reply to the charges that I made? If they do not we will be left with the prosecution's case, and not hear the case for the defence. It cannot be in the interests of the House to permit that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We must allow the Government to answer.

Mr. MacDermot: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) could not interest enough of his hon. Friends to listen to what he had to say at 3.15 the other morning. I was here and I heard him. There was no closure. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has slipped up. There was no Closure. The hon. Gentleman was not here. Most of his hon. Friends were not here either, and so the poor hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will be anxious to acknowledge that it was the Minister who failed to hold the House.

Mr. MacDermot: The Minister was here, and if only there had been enough of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends here to listen to him the hon. Gentleman would have been able to hear everything that the Minister had to say.
The debate today has really fallen into two parts. On the one hand, there have been those hon. Members who have referred to, relied on, and elaborated the criticisms contained in the Estimates Committee's Report, and, on the other, wehave had a rather more wide-ranging debate in which hon. Members have questioned the rightness or wisdom of appointing a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate because they say that the provisions of the Bill are, in one way or another, inadequate.
Perhaps I might deal with those two series of points in order, and take first the criticisms based on the Estimates Committee's Report. Roughly, three criticisms have been levied against the action taken by the Government. First, it is alleged that the system of Parliamentary control of expenditure is being by-passed; secondly, that it is improper to use the Civil Contingencies Fund for a new head of expenditure for which legislative or other Parliamentary approval has not been obtained; thirdly, that a new Department of the Executive has been brought into being under the guise of adding the word "Designate" to the Parliamentary Commissioner's title. I think that that is a fair representation of the three criticisms in the Estimates Committee's Report.

Mr. Webster: The Minister has used the word "improper". I would remind him that the Estimates Committee, which is not merely a body of Opposition Members but is an all-party body, said that
if the procedure adopted in this case were allowed to pass without protest, the possibility would be opened of by-passing the whole system of Parliamentary control of expenditure whenever the Executive thought it expedient to do so.
The word "improper" is not used. It is simply said earlier on that it is without precedent, except for the purchase of a work of art, and I do not see the relevance of that.

Mr. MacDermot: I am surprised that the hon. Member, to whose interesting speech I listened with patience, should seek to intervene before I have had any opportunity to begin to deploy my argument. If he says that he does not think that it was improper, I am glad to hear it, but I thought that the tenor of his remarks, and those of some of his hon.


Friends, indicated that the criticism of the Estimates Committee was that this was an improper use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. I see some hon. Members opposite nodding. That was one allegation that I proposed to seek to meet.
With the greatest respect to the Estimates Committee, I submit that all three criticisms are misconceived, I suggest that that is fully established by the departmental observations contained in the Treasury Minute now published as a White Paper. The Treasury shares the Estimates Committee's concern that the system of Parliamentary control should not be by-passed, but we cannot accept that the meeting of the expenditure from the Civil Contingencies Fund in this case did by-pass it or was an improper use of the Fund. In one sense every use of the Fund is a by-passing of Parliamentary control, in that it is an anticipation, and an exception to the general rule that no expenditure is incurred before money has been voted by Parliament.
But this is the purpose for which the Fund exists; it is to enable the Government, in circumstances which they are prepared to defend to the House, to incur expenditure before it has been voted and approved by Parliament.
The Estimates Committee appears to think that the Fund should be used only to defray additional expenditure incurred by a Department in carrying out its normal functions, for which the existing Estimates provision is insufficient, and suggests that it should not be used to finance an entirely new head of expenditure. With great respect, this is not in accordance with precedents for the accepted uses of the Fund. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) has already referred to the classical statement of the purposes of the Fund, which was a statement made by my precedessor, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury —apparently another Irishman, because his name was Guinness—on 3rd March, 1925, when asked by Mr. Runciman
for what purposes and under what powers the Civil Contingencies Fund was originally instituted, and what limits are placed upon the uses to which it has been customary to put the fund; and whether assurances as to the use to be made of the fund were given to the House by the Treasury when the capital sum in the fund was last increased?

It was a lengthy reply, and I shall read only the relevant part of it. The Minister said:
The Civil Contingencies Fund provides a sum, entrusted to the Government, to meet payment for miscellaneous services not appropriate to any separate or specific Vote of Parliament, and to make advances where necessary to meet deficiences on existing Votes, or for new services, in anticipation of Votes of Parliament. The Fund dates from 1862. and the arrangements in force follow, with one exception…the recommendations in the Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1861.
Those recommendations were, first:
That the Treasury should continue to make advances to meet deficiences on the ordinary Votes or for the new services, and that such advances be included in the Estimates for the succeeding year, as at present, and be repaid to the Contingencies Fund.
Secondly,
That the Estimates should in each case state the sum to be repaid to the Contingency Fund.
Thirdly,
That no final payment should be charged to the Fund; but that, in case the Government, for the Public Service, feel it necessary on their responsibility to incur any Civil Service expenses, the deficiency occasioned by such expenditure shall be considered as an advance, and be submitted to Parliament as a Vote in the succeeding year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1925 ; Vol. 181, c. 276.]
The essence of the matter is that the Government, on their responsibility, incur expenditure in advance of a Vote and are able to use this Fund. That cannot be a final payment ; they must seek the authority of Parliament, which is what we intend to do, to repay the Fund and to satisfy Parliament that it was a proper use of the expenditure. That is the way in which it is done and Parliament is always informed when recourse is had to the Fund, and the proper time at which to satisfy Parliament is when the Estimates are laid before the House.

Mr. Sharples: In the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, is there any limitation at all on the powers of the Government in this respect? Following his argument, it would appear the Government can do exactly what they want and come to Parliament afterwards. There seems to be no limitation at all.

Mr. MacDermot: I propose to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury. As


the hon. Member will see from what his right hon. Friend said, the Government have exceedingly wide powers. The Government, taking the risk that Parliament will not approve what they are doing, are entitled to use the Fund for purposes they think right and necessary, it being their responsibility to satisfy Parliament that it was a proper use of the Fund.
There was quite an interesting debate on 12th July, 1963, on the scope and use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. The then Economic Secretary went into some detail and instanced six categories of expenditure—of which the hon. Member cited one, namely, payment on account of new services—and gave examples showing that it was a question of timing and was dependent on an emergency having arisen, such as floods. As the hon. Gentleman will agree if he studies what his right hon. Friend said, these were not intended to be exclusive categories, and he himself made a number of general statements afterwards to show the use and scope of the Fund. Having enunciated the six categories, he went on to say:
I elaborate these matters, because I want my hon. Friends to understand particularly that while I and the Government share with them the ideal and the desire to control expenditure I must make the point that there will always be circumstances where there will be unexpected expenditure and there have to be funds available to meet it.
He went on to say that
the Government possess the ultimate power to use the Fund in any way in which they are prepared to defend it. I think this is the difficulty that hon. Members may have in mind. I cannot help feeling that this power is fundamental to the existence of the Fund…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1963 ; Vol. 680, c. 1689.]
He went on to compare it—I am not sure how happily—to the power of a managing director, granted by the board of directors, to advance cash for purposes he thinks necessary.

Sir J. Eden: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in the end, it is the responsibility of the Government to determine in what way or for what purposes the Fund shall be employed. The Treasury, in its Sixth Special Report, specifically refers to this aspect, of the Government's being prepared to defend and justify the purposes to which they put the Fund. But the examples quoted by the Minister from the speech made

by my right hon. Friend in 1963 clearly seem to relate to the application of this Fund for expenditure on new services, and special circumstances on an emergency situation, if not actually being one. I fully accept that there are opportunities open to the Government to go wider, but does not the Minister agree, from the precedents showing for what purposes the expenditure of this Fund on new services has been employed, that this has been primarily in the past in an unforeseen or emergency situation, and not a situation such as the one currently under dispute or examination this afternoon, which is the creation of a new office which had long been prepared for and anticipated in the election programme of the Government?

Mr. MacDermot: I come to the circumstances in which the power is being used on this occasion. I was referring to a speech made by the right hon. Member for Taunton, who was making clear what kind of new services could be established for which recourse would be had to the Civil Contingencies Fund. He mentioned the need for expenditure arising too late for a Supplementary Estimate to be presented in the same financial year—in other words, in anticipation of a Supplementary Estimate. The most obvious example—and the one which that right hon. Gentleman used on that occasion—is expenditure arising out of a disaster; an emergency forced on the Government. However, if at any time the Government decide to expend money on a new service in anticipation of Parliamentary authority, they must satisfy Parliament that it was proper to do so. They would, of course, have recourse to the Civil Contingencies Fund only—

Sir J. Eden: rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I will come to the justification for this shortly. I am at present seeking to establish the principles and precedents on which this power is used.

Sir J. Eden: I regret to delay the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is important that he gives the House at least one other example, particularly relating to the time from which he was quoting, the time of Mr. Guinness.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to be patient and allow me


to develop my argument. I will answer all these points.
The Estimates Committee invited the witnesses to say whether there was any precise precedent for this and concluded in its Report that there appeared to be no precedent for such an officer being appointed and beginning work in advance of the passing of the enabling legislation. As the Treasury Minute points out this is not surprising because there is only one other such officer known to our constitution, the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, if the Committee was suggesting that appointments had not been made, and persons paid out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, before an Estimate or Supplementary Estimate had been authorised, it was under a misapprehension.
I will give two examples of what I mean. First, in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 1962–63 there was a sum included of £11,000 which was provided for the office of the then First Secretary. The House will recall that this appointment revived, as it were, an ancient office which had not been used for a long time. The person concerned was Lord Butler. He had assumed office in 1962 without any prior Estimate having been presented to Parliament. He was paid—and, presumably, his private office staff were also paid—out of the Civil Contingencies Fund until such time as the Supplementary Estimates were presented.
My second example shows how a completely new Vote arises, because this was one of the criticisms in the Committee's Report. In December, 1965, the Social Science Research Council was set up and it was financed as to £28,000 from the Civil Contingencies Fund before the Supplementary Estimate had been presented or passed. When it was presented, it was in the form of a completely new Vote. Almost any Supplementary Estimates contain something new in that some new service was originally financed from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the relevant Estimate contains a note to that effect.
The Committee appears to have thought that there was something unconstitutional in setting up what it described as a "Department of State" before Parliamentary approval had been

obtained. In fact, no Executive Department has been set up. The Parliamentary Commissioner-designate has not, in this sense, begun work. He has not begun work as a Parliamentary Commissioner.
The implied criticism about the word "designate" misapprehends the position. He is carrying out none of the executive functions which will fall due to him on his appointment as Commissioner. He and his staff are doing the preparatory work which will enable them to begin work as early as possible after the Bill is passed. If we had not appointed a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate and had not allowed him to secure his staff and do the preparatory work, we would have needed a substantial period between the passing of the Bill and his appointment and the making of the appointed day to bring the office into force. We were anxious to avoid that delay.
Indeed, the Government accepted the risk of abortive expenditure if Parliament did not approve the Measure. That was the sole risk involved in what the Government decided to do. With respect, I suggest that it was hardly a reckless risk for the Government to have taken. The proposals for a Parliamentary Commissioner had figured in our programme in two General Elections. Before the second General Election we had published both a White Paper and a Bill which is substantially the same as the Measure introduced in this Parliament. The only criticism of the Bill when published was that it did not go far enough. Apart from that, there was virtually no opposition expressed to it and, indeed, we had been harried and pressed at Question Time—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked a number of Questions on this issue—to fulfil our election pledge and introduce a Bill to set up a Parliamentary Commissioner.
For this reason it did not seem that any grave risk was involved, and this was borne out by what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said in an earlier intervention, in which he reminded the House that when the Bill was debated it had an unopposed Second Reading and an unopposed Third Reading.

Sir J. Foster: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give a precedent for paying out of the Civil Contigencies


Fund money for an office which had not yet had the approval of Parliament?

Mr. MacDermot: I have given one example. I referred to the case of the office of the First Secretary.

Sir J. Foster: That was by Statute already. Can he give any precedent for payment for an office which had not yet been approved or created by Parliament? The First Secretary's office had been so created.

Mr. MacDermot: I agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that a Statute existed for creating that office. In any event, the approval of Parliament was necessary for the resuscitation of that office and that approval was obtained, through this Estimates procedure, subsequent to his appointment.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow me to continue.

Mr. Ridley: There having been no precedent for the creation of this office, would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that both the I.R.C. and the Steel Corporation are precedents from the present which are equally regrettable?

Mr. MacDermot: In his Answers to the hon. Gentleman's Questions today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated at Question Time that there were many precedents of people having been appointed and their staffs having begun the preparatory work before the actual legislation had been passed setting up whatever was the body they were planning. I believe that there are plenty of precedents—

Mr. Ridley: Name them.

Mr. MacDermot: —and if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down to my right hon. Friend for amplification I am sure that he will receive a satisfactory reply.
As to the precise circumstances of this appointment, the House will remember, as I said, that in the previous Parliament we published a Parliamentary Commissioner Bill and that it had been the wish and intention of the Government at that time to present it before the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate was

appointed. However, the General Election intervened and it did not prove possible, before the Summer Recess after the election, to have the Second Reading debate of the Bill. Consequently, if we were to give the Parliamentary Commissioner adequate time to do this preparatory work, it was necessary to appoint him before the Summer Recess. This was done. The Prime Minister informed Parliament at once and said that Parliamentary approval would be sought by the submission of a Supplementary Estimate at the earliest possible date, as has been done.
I assure hon. Members—and I hope that the Estimates Committee when it has read the Treasury Minute will be satisfied—that there is nothing unconstitutional, improper, or disrespectful to the House in the procedure which has been followed.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted the precedent of the Bill which was before Parliament before the General Election and has said that because of that we knew that the matter would come forward again. I point out the entirely opposite precedent of the Land Commission Bill, which was before Parliament before the General Election. It was much modified and a completely new Bill was brought forward after the election. Far from appointing officers and bodies under the Bill, the appointed day has been set back until the Bill has been through both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member proves my case, that different circumstances apply in different situations. This was a different piece of legislation and I have pointed out that it was not controversial legislation. The only complaint made has been that it does not go far enough. Everyone, except the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who opposed the idea in principle, was anxious to see this office introduced and starting to function as soon as possible. That could be achieved only if a Parliamentary Commissioner-designate was appointed and given time to assemble staff and make arrangements for the organisation to start as soon as the Bill is through Parliament. This has been achieved by this modest expenditure which the House is now being asked to approve.
I turn to the rather more general points raised about the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I am sure that I shall not be expected to deal with them at length as we debated them very fully in Committee and in the Second and Third Reading debates on the Bill. I have not answered the question whether what was done on this occasion would provide a precedent for future occasions. I only repeat what is said in the Treasury Minute that this is most unlikely because the circumstances are very unusual and it is most unlikely that they will be repeated. The general complaint in so far as it has been made again today, is that the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill does not go far enough, that the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate is too circumscribed and restricted in his powers, and one hon. Member referred to him as a "poor miserable little functionary".
That criticism comes very ill from hon. Members opposite because the proposals contained in the Bill with the limitations that there is no power for the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate discretionary decisions, were almost word for word proposals contained in the "Justice" report submitted to the previous Government and rejected by the previous Government.
I remind hon. Members of the grounds on which the proposals were rejected. It was not that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be a poor, weak, miserable little functionary, or that he would be so circumscribed as to be practically useless. "Justice" did not recommend that he should have power to deal with the complaints against local authorities or nationalised industries. The reason given by the previous Government was that the setting up of a Parliamentary Commissioner would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business.
They thought that he would be so potent and powerful that he would slow up the whole machinery of government. We have heard nothing on those lines from hon. Members opposite today. The second reason given by the then Attorney-General for rejecting these proposals was that in the then Government's view there was already adequate provision under our Constitution and Parliamentary practice for the redress of any genuine complaint

of maladministration in the citizen's right of access to Members of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East today deployed that very argument. He certainly is the first hon. Member to do so today and, I think, in the whole of the debates on the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill in this Parliament.
That was one of the reasons for which the proposal was rejected. It surely is hardly consistent with the howl which goes up from hon. Members opposite whenever we discuss the Parliamentary Commissioner, when they say that he would be quite incapable of assisting in any way people who seek redress for their grievances.

Sir J. Foster: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to "Justice". I can tell him, as chairman of the executive committee, why "Justice" agreed that it should be limited to Members of the House of Commons. That was because it was felt that the Bill would never have gone through the House of Commons without that provision, but I still regret it very much.

Mr. MacDermot: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman takes that view. I am sure from my experience in handling the Bill that "Justice" was right. If the office were set up other than as an office of Parliament with access to Members of Parliament, I doubt very much whether the Bill would have been accepted.
I remind the House of a third objection which was raised to the Parliamentary Commissioner proposal by the Leader of the Opposition during the 1964 General Election. He then attacked these proposals as being a threat to the authority of Parliament. We have heard some echoes today of the complaint and criticism that access is to be through Members of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) is strenuous in advocating this argument. We shall see, I hope very shortly, when this Bill has passed through another place, what results, but the criticisms which we have heard today are partly contradictory in themselves and certainly wholly contradict the attitude taken by the Government when hon. Members opposite were in power.
I was asked a specific question by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)


about the application of the Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland. He inquired what would be the position when we had a complaint on a matter which in practice involved two authorities, both a Department of the Northern Ireland Government and a Department of the United Kingdom Government. He asked if in that case the Parliamentary Commissioner could investigate only the activities of the United Kingdom Government. This question was gone into fully in Committee. The Commissioner will, of course, be able to investigate complaints against activities of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland but also complaints against activities of the Northern Ireland Government when performing a true agency function for the United Kingdom Government. This happens in relation to agricultural deficiency payments, passports and repayments of Income Tax. Because then the Northern Ireland Government would be acting as agents for the United Kingdom Government, things of that sort would be within the scope.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) asked whether there would be an office of the Commissioner in Wales. This is something which we shall consider and which the Parliamentary Commissioner will consider when he sees how matters work out in practice. It is his intention, as I informed the Standing Committee, to set up an office in Scotland. There are many Government Department offices situated in Edinburgh and the need for a Commissioner's office there can clearly be anticipated. It may be that there will be a need for an office in Wales and for an office in Northern Ireland. We want to see how it works out in practice and, if the need is established, offices will be established there as well.
Finally, I was asked one question by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) right outside the scope of our debate about the Parliamentary Commissioner. He pointed out that certain passages in these Supplementary Estimates had a note to the effect that moneys not expended would not be
liable to surrender to the Exchequer.
The hon. Gentleman thought that this was a new practice. I must advise him that it is not. It is always the practice in relation to grants in aid and a note to

that effect is, therefore, inserted in the Estimates.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that explanation. However, he has slightly misunderstood me. I said that it was a rare practice—or certainly that is what I intended to say. I regret that it is not considerably more extended.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Silkin: —That the Question be now put.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is—

Sir J. Eden: I sought to intervene before the Financial Secretary sat down.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put accordingly.

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that no Motion for the Closure was actually moved by any hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chief Patronage Secretary moved the closure.

Mr. Robert Cooke: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I was on my feet—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I was on my feet addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before the Patronage Secretary left his seat. He was in a seated position from which he could not possibly have moved the Closure.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my recollection.

Sir J. Eden: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Has it not been the practice in the past for hon. Members to be able to intervene in a


speech towards the end of an hon. Member's speech before he has finally sat down? I watched very carefully, having taken part in this debate, for the Financial Secretary to be drawing to an end of his remarks and then sought leave to elucidate one further point. Surely I should have been given the opportunity to do that before we were gagged?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Webster: (seated and covered): On a point of order. It is not in the recol-

lection of any Member on this side that the Patronage Secretary was seen to move the Closure. On the other hand, it is within the recollection of hon. Members on this side that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was on his feet on a point of order before the Financial Secretary sat down.

Mr. Speaker: That is not in the recollection of the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 156.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, George (Goole)


Alldritt, Walter
Edelman, Maurice
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.>


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ennals, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, yardley)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bence, Cyril
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Finch, Harold
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Binns. John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bishop, E. S.
Floud, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lomas, Kenneth


Boston, Terence
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lubbock, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gardner, Tony
McBride, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
McCann, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Cant, R. B.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacDermot, Niall


Carmichael, Neil
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McGuire, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Chapman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mackintosh, John P.


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles


Dalyell, Tarn
Haseldine, Norman
Marquand, David


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hazell, Bert
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Henig, Stanley
Mellish, Robert


Davidson, james (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dell, Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dempsey, James
Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, 3.)
Murray, Albert


Dickens, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John
Norwood, Christopher


Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Ogden, Eric




O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Orme, Stanley
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Oswald, Thomas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wallace, George


Padley, Walter
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Pardoe, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wellbeloved, James


Park, Trevor
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Snow, Julian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
William, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Randall, Harry
Stonehouse, John
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn
Swingler, Stephen
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Reynolds, G. W.
Symonds, J. B.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Richard, Ivor
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Yates, Victor


Roberts, Go[...]wy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank
FELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Charles R. Morris


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Grieve, Percy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Rt Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bitten, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Heseltlne, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Cordon
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkln, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Royle, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpie, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Sinolair, Sir George


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Cot. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lovcys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mac Arthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.;
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fortcscue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. william


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizee)
wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew. Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Hector Monro.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Sharpies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? I understood that this was a new Bill which we were to consider this afternoon, and you yourself, Mr. Speaker, had put down a number of subjects which back-bench Members might discuss on the Second Reading. We had a discussion on the first of the subjects which you had put down, and when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rose to speak there were several hon. Members on this side who had been waiting here throughout the whole debate so far in order to take part in the discussion either on the first subject or on the remaining subjects.
Now that the Closure has been moved by the Patronage Secretary and passed on a Division, all discussion of the remaining subjects has been stifled. I ask for your protection, Sir. How is it possible now for hon. Members to raise the subjects which you yourself put down for discussion?

Mr. Speaker: Acceptance of the Motion for the Closure by the Chair cannot be questioned except by the usual method of putting down a Motion.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your Ruling on a matter which I endeavoured to raise during the course of the Division when, I think, I did not make myself clear? What I wanted to ask you, Sir, was whether the Closure was ever moved at all, because, immediately the Financial Secretary resumed his seat, I was on my feet endeavouring to address you on a point of order, and the Patronage Secretary, if he said any words at all, said them from a sedentary position.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the passage on page 475 of Erskine May, under the heading, "When closure is movable". Erskine May says:
The intervention of the Chair regarding closure is restricted to occasions when the

motion is made in abuse of the rules of the House"—
the Patronage Secretary was not in the orthodox position when endeavouring to move the Closure—
or infringes the rights of the minority".
I submit to you, Sir, that this Closure certainly has infringed the rights of the minority.

Mr. Speaker: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is out of order. He may not criticise acceptance of the Motion for the Closure by the Chair except in the way which is the undoubted right of all hon. Members, that is, by putting down a Motion criticising any action of the Chair. As to what happened before, it was a question of human judgment. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Closure caught my eye. I accepted the Motion for the Closure.

Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you know me well enough—and so does the House—to understand that I would not at any time attempt to question your Ruling in any way. What I seek is your guidance on a matter of importance to the House as a whole. You said at the beginning of today's business, Sir, that this was a new Bill, and a number of subjects were selected for discussion. So far, we have managed to discuss only one of those many subjects. There are hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak on following subjects and who were expecting to be able to do so. Because of the Closure moved by the Patronage Secretary, we have now been debarred from so doing.
I fully accept that you were quite right, Mr. Speaker, to accept the Motion as you did. All I ask you is how the rights of back-bench Members can be protected when they wish to discuss matters on the Consolidated Fund which they regard as of importance to themselves, to their constituents or to the nation. By this procedure we have been debarred. How can we protect our rights?

Mr. Speaker: On the issues behind the whole problem we are discussing, Mr. Speaker has no comment to make. The difficulties between both sides of the House are matters which both sides must get down to. The specific issue raised by


the hon. Gentleman is not a matter for the Chair. He must raise it in some other way.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say, in putting this point of order to you, that I personally regret very much that you, Sir, as well as the House should have been put in the difficulty which we have had over this matter.
I seek your guidance as a comparatively new Member of the House. As I understand it, on the Consolidated Fund Bill back-bench Members are entitled to seek redress of grievance before voting Supply. The other night I raised some grievances on the subject of E.L.D.O. That Bill, as you know, Sir, was talked out. We have now a new Bill before us in which the subject-matter is identical, and one of the subjects under that Bill, with a price tag of £4 million or £5 million upon it, is E.L.D.O.
The Minister of Aviation was present and ready to reply to the points that I made the other night. On this Bill, is there to be no opportunity whatever for the Minister to reply to those points, or is that debate to be left, like Mahomet's coffin, hanging for ever without answer?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss all the results of what happens because the first debate on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, Winter Supplementary Estimates, took place on an evening or early morning when the House was counted out. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of a new Bill. If he looks at the Ruling which I gave at the beginning of today's business, he will see that I did not say that it is a new Bill; it is a new Second Reading Question on the same Bill.

Sir Stephen McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance from the point of view of protection of backbench Members' rights? It is within your recollection that, when one of my hon. Friends was addressing himself to the matter before the House, you drew his attention to the fact that it was desirable to speak primarily upon the subject which had been put down for discussion. Nevertheless, you very properly stressed his right to range further if he wanted to, but you suggested to the House that

it would be a good thing if we concentrated on the first subject for discussion.
In forbearance to your wishes on that matter, Mr. Speaker, some of us who might have wished to speak on later subjects refrained from speaking on them until the earlier one had been disposed of. It now seems that our rights to raise these matters are denied to us. Can you suggest some way by which they could be revived?

Mr. Speaker: I have utter and complete sympathy with every right hon. and hon. Member who has found himself in some way incapacitated or placed in difficulties by what has happened today and on the previous day when the same Bill was being discussed, but I cannot do anything about it.

Mr. Edward Heath: Mr. Speaker, you have said quite rightly that the House can challenge your Ruling only by substantive Motion. I therefore ask your guidance on what I think is an important point. You said this afternoon that this was a new Second Reading of the Bill and you confirmed that by saying that hon. Members could, if called, speak although they had already spoken in the earlier debate on the Bill. It was therefore a fresh debate. For the guidance of the House, could you state when a fresh debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill has been closured after less than three hours' debate?

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that, whatever questions may be raised about the moving of the Closure, it is entirely within the discretion of the Chair as to whether it shall accept the Motion for the Closure and that therefore what the Leader of the Opposition attacks is the decision of Mr. Speaker to accept it? Should he not, like other Members, abide by your Ruling and if he has criticisms of the Chair he should put down a Motion?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear any attack on the Chair in anything the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said. He was asking the factual question as to on what occasions previously a Closure has been accepted within three hours on a Consolidated Fund Bill


debate. I cannot give the answer offhand at the moment. I can, however, say that this is an unusual occasion.

Sir J. Eden: I first apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for my over-animation earlier, which I wish to make abundantly clear was meant as no discourtesy to you. It was occasioned by my disgust at the Government's apparent determination to fail to justify £159 million of expenditure. Is it possible under these circumstances to go back in any way over the period we have already covered? Since we have already had two Consolidated Fund Bill debates, can we now have a third and start again?

Mr. Speaker: As I have already said, I have every sympathy with all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who find themselves in some difficulties because of the unusual course of events during the past seven days. It is not in Mr. Speaker's power to produce a third Consolidated Fund Bill or debate.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Further to the point put to you by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker—you ruled at the beginning of our debate today that this was a new Second Reading. The time was then 3.34 p.m. The debate was closured approximately three hours later. You yourself decided that 11 subjects should be set down. A simple mathematical calculation shows, therefore, that my hon. Friends and I have had 16 minutes per subject—if we caught your eye. I am now placed in the unhappy predicament of having clamour in my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and indignation expressed on one of the topics you selected, Mr. Speaker, namely, the deficit of British Railways.
I wished to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading not only the financial position of British Railways but the inadequacies of the service provided in Worcestershire. Throughout the three hours I deferred to your suggestion—for it was not a Ruling—that Members should talk only about the first topic. I am now therefore permanently denied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—permanently denied—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—per-

manently denied the opportunity to seek redress for my constituents.
I bow at all times to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is he trying to do now?"] You made the decision at the outset that there should be a new Second Reading; you made the decision of the eleven topics; you made the decision to accept the closure, and thus I am permanently incapacitated—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]—by your triple decision. While I accept all your Rulings without reservation and am deeply grateful to you for the sympathy you have expressed, I suggest—and this is my point of order —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that the rights of an individual Opposition back bencher in a minority are of supervening importance in this critical consideration.

Mr. Speaker: With the general observations of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) I am in complete agreement. The rights —[Interruption.] Order. The rights of every individual hon. Member are very precious to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to criticise the Chair for accepting the Closure, he cannot do it in this form.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman at length. He must at least listen to Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is Parliamentarian enough not to be completely and permanently incapacitated in the way he suggested.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would it not be right to say, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members would not have had need to seek your protection had they stayed here last Wednesday evening and given us the Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: We are not going to hold an inquest on last Wednesday evening.

Mr. Peyton: For the guidance of the House, Mr. Speaker, could you reconsider the practice of issuing a list, because you have today, purely out of desire to help the House, issued a list of subjects which it was intended Members could have an opportunity of raising, should they wish,


in turn. The whole object of what you have done has been frustrated by the somewhat grubby manœuvre of the Treasury Bench, unattended by the Leader of the House, who shuffles in here with an untidy grin on his face, taking not the slightest notice of the results which have attended upon his own handling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mishandling."] I bow to my hon. Friends—mishandling of Government business. It seems to me that the Chair has been put in a most undignified position by the action of the Government. When Ministers come sliding in here with grins on their faces, they only show with what contumely and disregard they hold Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: It has been a courtesy of Mr. Speaker, and of the Chair when the House has been in Committee to provide information of the kind which can be provided by a list. It is a great convenience for the House to have a list of selected Amendments, or of topics selected for debate on the Consolidated Fund, and so on. I imagine that the House would not want that practice to cease. In today's case, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will know, this was not Mr. Speaker's selection. The list was a factual record of the applications which had been made for topics to be debated today.

Sir Frederic Bennett: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked a question to which all of us would like to know the answer when he asked what possible precedent there was for a Closure being moved in this way within three hours of the beginning of a debate. I think that my recollection is right when I say that you, Mr. Speaker, said that at short notice you could not give such a precedent. For the benefit of all hon. Members, who are not trying to make things difficult for you, could you possibly consider giving that information, if not today, then in a Ruling tomorrow, so as to save a similar embarrassment in future?

Mr. Speaker: I am not conscious of any attempt by any hon. Member to embarrass the Chair. I appreciate the spirit in which every point of order has been raised. It is quite possible that the events of the past week themselves have been entirely without precedent.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. I appreciate that everything has been rightly done according to our rules of procedure. However, what can be done in future to protect the rights of back benchers, which we all agree to have been seriously curtailed today, from the repeated incompetences of the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I think that all of that is outwith the power of Mr. Speaker to answer.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. Does what has happened mean that these Supplementary Estimates cannot be dicussed again in any way? We have been asked to agree, for example, to an additional £15 million for British Railways without any explanation or discussion. To get out of this difficulty, would it be in order, if they so desired, for Ministers to give short statements at some future time to explain the reasons for the Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. Speaker: It is always in order for a Minister, if he so wishes, to make a short statement to the House. I have no power to persuade Ministers to do so. Technically or theoretically there was no debate on the last occasion when the Second Reading of this Consolidated Fund Bill took place, but I rather gather that there was something like a debate which lasted quite a time.

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order. I wonder whether you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, of the very invidious position in which those hon. Members whose names have been listed as wishing to raise subjects for debate today have been placed as a result of your acceptance of the Closure. The subject which I wished to raise happened to be the next on the list. It involves the summary dismissal by a certain company of more than 150 people in Leicestershire. There are representatives here today, not only from the County of Leicestershire, who have come to listen to the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Out of order."]—

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member is out of order, I will tell him.

Mr. Farr: There are representatives here today, not only from the County of


Leicestershire and of the 150 people who have lost their jobs, but also representatives concerned with the financial institutions of the City of London, who have come especially to listen to this debate. It was indicated by the list that there was every chance that the subject would come up, as it was the second indicated thereon. I put it to you most sincerely and with the utmost confidence that you will appreciate the very difficult position in which I and other hon. Members have been placed. We have gone to a tremendous amount of trouble and constituents have gone to a tremendous amount of expense in a matter affecting their jobs and their livelihoods. [Laughter].

Mr. Cranley Onslow: There is nothing to laugh at.

Mr. Farr: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. In these circumstances, we are placed in a very difficult position and we have the almost impossible task of explaining to these people why this urgent matter will not receive the attention of the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who indicated his intention of seeking to raise this matter on the Supplementary Estimates for the first time after the first non-event had taken place, the debate last week. I cannot comment without joining in the battle which has divided the two sides of the House over the whole issue of what happened and what has happened today.

Mr. John Binns: On a point of order. In reply to the point of order put to you by the Leader of the Opposition, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that although you have seen no criticism of the Chair in what has been said, from this side of the House it looks as though this has been made the opportunity for an organised criticism of the Chair. Surely the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is in no way a point of order.

Mr. Mawby: On a point of order. To get rid of any misunderstanding such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), is it not a fact—and I

would welcome your guidance, Mr. Speaker—that this was only the Second Reading of the Bill and that there will be further stages when hon. Members can continue to raise particular problems before voting Supply?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the Sessional Order has changed all that. It is on Second Reading that these matters can be raised.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is it not your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that many of the matters which have been raised with you are matters for the Select Committee on Procedure rather than for yourself?

Mr. Speaker: I have refused to make a Ruling on most of the matters which have been raised with me. I am always grateful when the Select Committee on Procedure considers procedural matters and it might like to look at this. I am not sure whether it would be profitable for it to do so.

Sir J. Foster: On a point of order. Would you be willing to consider the matter of the list from this point of view, Mr. Speaker? You said, obviously rightly, that it was for the convenience of the House that there should be a list when the Consolidated Fund Bill came up for Second Reading. However, when it is likely or possible that the Closure will be accepted, is it not somewhat inconsistent that a list of eleven subjects should be put forward, when the list indicates that as many of the subjects will be taken as is reasonable in a debate lasting until, say, 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock? Could not the practice be altered so that there will not be the apparent contradiction or anomaly of having a list of subjects which cannot be discussed in three hours and so that there is no conflict with the possibility of the Chair accepting the Closure?
The Closure was accepted after three hours. Of course, we cannot question the reasons, nor inquire into why you accepted it, but one must surmise that those reasons must have existed throughout the debate. In other words, Mr. Speaker, you did not suddenly get impatient with hon. Members for talking too long about the Ombudsman and so cut out all the other subjects. I therefore suggest that you might consider this point, not giving


a Ruling today, to see whether, if these peculiar circumstances arise again, there should be a list which is inconsistent with the acceptance of the Closure within three hours.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. These considerations were in my mind yesterday when I was asked whether I would publish a list. The difficulty was that if I had not published a list it would suggest that I had made up my mind about the Closure before the debate began, which was not true.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF AVIATION (DISSOLUTION) ORDER

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st February]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Question again proposed.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I was about to expand one or two remarks when we last debated this Motion. One of the problems that I wish to talk about is that of control of equipment. The Minister of Technology is responsible, so far as the Government are responsible at all, for various technical equipment used on board aircraft. For instance, the blind landing equipment has been developed under the aegis of the Minister of Aviation and I presume that now that function will devolve upon the Minister of Technology. Presumably he will take control of the establishments at Hertford and other places.
I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has a measure of responsibility for airfields, and part of the blind landing equipment will be upon the ground. I would seem that after the Ministry of Aviation has been abolished, the equipment would be dealt with by two Ministries dealing with what is in the air and what is on the ground, coming under the Minister of Technology and the President of the Board of Trade respectively.
The President of the Board of Trade controls a number of people who operate this, and I presume that in future his Vote will include a certain amount of money to enable him to discharge these responsibilities. To whom do we put down Questions about blind landing? Will it be necessary to specify whether we are talking about the bit on the ground or the bit in the air, or is there some common Minister to whom we can in future apply? This is certainly not clear from the Bill.
Suppose that there is a civil airline crash. It is usual, under these unfortunate circumstances, for a statement to be made by a Government representative from the Dispatch Box. Who will


make it in future? Will it be the President of the Board of Trade, who has some responsibilities in this matter, especially if the crash occurs on an airfield, or will it be the Minister of Technology, who may have something to tell us about the technical reasons for the crash? Either of those right hon. Gentlemen would have grounds to make a statement, but I suppose that the natural person to do so would be the Minister of State, Board of Trade. He knows about the technical side and the Board of Trade side.
It is right for us to be surprised if the statement is not made by a member of the Cabinet. Which of the two Cabinet Ministers concerned will make the statement? The President of the Board of Trade is within the Cabinet, but such matters would not be within his technical knowledge. He knows about other things, about E.C.G.D., about the duty on citrus fruits coming into the country after a certain date, about the quality of children's nightdresses, how to make Rhodesian sanctions work, what to do about patent law. Those are the sorts of thing that occupy his mind.
The Minister of Technology has different things to think about. He knows of scientific matters; he knows where computers come from ; about space, and he is interested in novel ways for getting stones out of olives and things like that. Which of these two Cabinet Ministers will stand up at the Box and give us the news under those circumstances?
The accounting officer of any Ministry is the Permanent Under-Secretary. He is bound to present the work on the Vote of his Ministry, and he is responsible for seeing that everything is right. Who will be the accounting officer in this case, and what will be his responsibilities? In the past when we have put down Parliamentary Questions about things to do with aviation, we have sometimes found that the question was answered by the Secretary of State for Defence, and at other times it was thought more appropriate that the Minister of Aviation should answer it. For example, Questions about the F111A have in the past shifted between the two Ministries. We do not complain about that, but in so far as the Secretary of State for Defence was sometimes considered to be an inappropriate Minister to answer and the Minister

of Aviation was preferred, who will now answer?
The Minister of Aviation is talking about the F111A, and that makes sense. Will the Minister of Technology talk about it? Is the Minister of State, Board of Trade charged with technological duties? Does he have any knowledge of defence and war stores? It is difficult to know to whom to put these Questions and it may be a little difficult inside the Ministries for the Permanent Under-Secretaries to sort out their responsibilities. These are genuine difficulties, and we look forward to hearing the answers.

Mr. Robert Carr: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation has already addressed the House in this debate and, as I understand it, he cannot speak again without leave. I do not wish to get into the position, on our side, where we refuse that leave on any false grounds. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Speaker? A number of my hon. Friends have been wanting to speak in the debate for some time, and there is also the question of E.L.D.O., which has organisational problems of Ministerial control, coming under the Order which we were not able to debate under the Consolidated Fund Bill in any way. Because of this, some of my hon. Friends might feel disinclined to give the hon. Gentleman the leave which he needs if we feel that his speech is one leading immediately to the Closure. But I did not want any of my hon. or right hon. Friends to take irrevocable action without first seeking some guidance.

Mr. Speaker: The answer quite simply is that the Chair will never indicate in advance whether it is prepared to accept the Closure. On the point of order which the right hon. Gentleman raises, the Minister is in charge of the Motion and has the right to reply without leave of the House.

Mr. Carr: Further to that point of order. Is there any difference? We notice the absence of the Minister of Technology. The House is debating the transfer to his Ministry of something which is much bigger in terms of numbers of staff and far bigger in terms of expenditure of money. The Minister is in charge in the sense that he moved the Motion, but is not the Minister of Technology really responsible?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister who moved the Motion has the right to reply. The question of which Minister ought to move it or which Minister ought to reply is a point of criticism, but not a point with which the Chair can deal.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order. I have sat through the greater part of the debate, going back to last week. I have been most anxious to raise points concerning the future and prospects of many men in my constituency. I hope that the Minister's intervention at this stage will not prevent me from raising those matters before the debate is concluded.

Mr. Neil Marten: Further to that point of order. I, too, have sat through the debate for two whole mornings wishing to speak. I should like to speak, and I should like an assurance from the Patronage Secretary, sitting on the Front Bench, that he will not move the Closure after the Minister has spoken. Otherwise I shall object to the Minister's speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has no power to object to the Minister's speaking. The Minister does not need the leave of the House to speak. On the general issue, this is a problem which hon. Members have to face from time to time.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a few minutes to raise one or two items about aviation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is most ingenious, but unsuccessful.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. With great respect, I did not raise a point of order. I stood up when the previous Member finished his point of order and you called me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was addressing me on a point of order.

Sir A. V. Harvey: No; I did not say so.

7.24 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse): The House has spent a long time debating the draft Order. This

is recognition of the great interest in the House and in the country in the responsibilities which my Ministry has had in the past and which are going to the Ministry of Technology. We have spent over five hours discussing this proposal. Sixteen right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate. I believe that the debate has been useful and that the House would now expect me to reply to some of the points raised.

Mr. Marten: rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: We have had a useful debate, although towards the latter part of yesterday morning's discussion I felt that we were straying a little from the Order.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Whatever may be the feeling of the Minister, is it not a fact that the Chair is in charge of our debates and rules on what is in order and what is not?

Mr. Speaker: The position is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has stated it.

Mr. Stonehouse: There seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House that it makes better sense for the duties of the Ministry of Aviation to be taken over by the Ministry of Technology, although I detected a certain amount of schizophrenia on the part of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). He was so anxious to belabour political points that he failed to give a clear line on the fundamental question. Perhaps his only argument with us is about the timing of the Order, although it was far from clear from his speech whether he thought that we had moved too quickly or too slowly.
I found the right hon. Gentleman's attack on the Prime Minister particularly nauseating as it was based on such a flimsy pretext. He quoted from my right hon. Friend's reply to Questions on 16th June last year, when he said:
As to implementation of the Plowden Report and decisions consequent upon that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation will have time while he is still within his Department to deal wth that question.
On the basis of that reply, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Prime Minister in terms which reflect no credit on his intelligence or on his honesty.

Mr. R. Carr: On a point or order. Is the Minister in order in reflecting on my honesty?

Mr. Kershaw: The Minister is talking about the Prime Minister's honesty.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman omitted, I hope not deliberately, to quote what the Prime Minister said—

Mr. Speaker.: Order. I have been addressed on a serious point of order. I did not hear the remark. If the Minister did make it, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Stonehouse: Of course, I withdraw it if that is your direction, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister said earlier in answer to questions:
With regard to the question of timing, if we were to say that we should not make changes which are believed to be necessary as long as there are all the problems that the aircraft industry is facing, we should never make them. We want to get into a posture in which these decisions can be properly considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1662.]
Obviously what my right hon. Friend said was correct: if we were to wait for every problem in the aircraft industry to be settled before the Ministry of Aviation is merged with the Ministry of Technology, we should have to wait for a very long time indeed. But even on the case put up by the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the implementation of the Plowden Report, the right hon. Gentleman is completely and utterly wrong. Every one of the Plowden Committee's recommendations which the Government have accepted—and we have accepted all of them either in full or in part, apart from two minor ones—has been acted upon in the last year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to disagree with that. Can he quote one major proposal on which we have not taken action within the last year?

Mr. R. Carr: One of the difficulties which the House has been in and which has led the Opposition on a number of occasions to make a simple request to the Government that they should publish a White Paper listing their decisions on the Plowden Committee's recommendations is this. There were 24 recommendations and, I think, 26 guide-lines for action. The decisions on them were

announced in such a piecemeal way that, without a lot of reference, we are genuinely unable to know exactly what has been acted upon and accepted and what has not. I ask the Minister once more whether he would reconsider the decision genuinely for the benefit of the House and out of courtesy to the Plowden Committee.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am prepared to consider any worthwhile proposal, but I believe that the House has been fully informed about the Government's attitude to the Plowden Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In answers in Parliament, we have indicated our view on all but two of the recommendations; there is no doubt about that. My predecessor, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in a debate last November, gave a general outline of our reaction to the Plowden Committee's Report. I believe that this is sufficient. I have an outline of all the recommendations and it is clear that there has been a plain declaration of the Government's policy on almost every one of them.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: The Plowden Committee made eight major proposals: First, that Britain should take the initiative in arranging a conference of European aviation Ministers. As the House knows, there are no directly parallel Ministers in any one of the countries with which we have to negotiate, but we have had frequent discussions with the European Ministers concerned with particular projects with a view to formulating a common policy for aircraft manufacture and procurement in Europe.
One of my first tasks when I was appointed Minister a month ago was to join the Secretary of State for Defence in talks in Paris about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. The following week I was in Bonn talking with the French and German Ministers directly concerned about the prospects for a European airbus. We are, therefore, already acting upon the first Plowden proposals.
Secondly, the Plowden Committee proposed that we should suggest to the United States Administration that it should remove all forms of discrimination against defence products manufactured abroad. As far as British products are concerned,


last year's Defence Review showed on page 11, paragraph 11, that arrangements have been made for British firms to compete without discrimination for United States defence contracts for items of equipment and supply jointly identified by both Administrations. Recently one of my senior officials concerned with aviation exports organised, in conjunction with S.B.A.C. and E.E.A., a defence seminar with the United States Air Force to explain to the aircraft industry how best to sell defence equipment to the United States.
While the right hon. Gentleman complains, we have been getting on with the job. A lot of useful contracts have already been achieved in the United States—for example, the Rolls-Royce contract for the supply of engines for the A.7 aircraft, which could be worth getting on for £100 million. These are significant facts. Rather than carping all the time, hon. Members on the other side of the House should give us some credit for all that we have been doing.
Thirdly, Plowden proposed that there should be a single Government organisation with major responsibility for promoting aircraft exports. Regarding military sales, a Head of Defence Sales has been appointed who will, after the merger, be jointly responsible to the Minister of Technology and the Secretary of State for Defence. He has already done some first-class work.
Plowden proposed that the standard period for export credits for major aircraft, including the BAC1–11, should be 10 years. In regard to the BAC1–11, this has already been agreed. Plowden recommended that the Government should decide their future helicopter requirements as soon as possible. We have made clear decisions about this field of procurement, and very satisfactory arrangements they are, too.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I should like to ask the Minister a question dealing with his previous point about export credits. Can he say whether the 10-year period has been extended, or whether he is in process of extending it in the case of turbo-prop aircraft such as the HS748.

Mr. Stonehouse: We are currently considering whether the export credits policy for up to 10 years, which now applies to

the BAC1–11, should be extended to the turbo-prop HS748 type of aircraft.
Plowden recommended that we should give financial assistance towards promising light aircraft. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends applauded the support my Ministry had given to the Islander project promoted by Britten-Norman. It is recognised that without our support they could not have gone ahead. Furthermore, we are taking over Beagle, as private enterprise is unable to get on with the job of providing stability for what can be a very worthwhile field of light aviation export. This is an example of the Government's action on Plowden. Plowden recommended, and I quote carefully here:
The Government should initiate discussions with B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley…
Hon Members should note those words:
…to establish the appropriate basis for the Government to acquire a shareholding in each concern".
We have done just that. Negotiations are in progress.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to the question of transfer of functions.

Mr. Stonehouse: These, Mr. Speaker, were all very substantial points raised in the debate. There were arguments, raised particularly by the right hon. Gentleman, representing that this Order should not be approved until the Plowden Committee's recommendations had been acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman launched into a very strong attack on the Prime Minister for the pledge he gave on this particular question. I am demonstrating that the Ministry has already acted upon the Plowden Committee's proposals that were made 12 months ago.
Negotiations are in progress with B.A.C. and H.S.A., and our objective is to combine their airframe interests into a single airframe company in those equity the Government will take up a substantial minority shareholding. These negotiations are very complex indeed, but we are pressing on with thm as fast as we can.
The Plowden Committee recommended that the Government should undertake an early review of the future of my Ministry. We have done just that. The result is the Order which we have brought to the House this afternoon.
These were the major proposals, and every single one of them has been acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman and others of his hon. Friends made heavy weather about Plowden's observations on the military aircraft procurement functions of my Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman went as far as to say:
The proposal before us does not match the Plowden Committee recommendations at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 429.]
He is very selective in his reading. He apparently completely omitted to read paragraph 500 of Plowden, which says:
It does not fall to the Committee within our terms of reference to make recommendations on this subject.
Further on it says, in paragraph 505:
We have not considered this subject at all deeply. But we recommend that the Government should review it fairly soon.
In our view, we were asked by Plowden to bear in mind a very important point, namely, that if defence procurement went completely into the Ministry of Defence there would be a risk that the civil interests of the industry would be unreasonably subordinated to the military.
Plowden went on to say:
This factor has additional weight at present since the special problems of achieving international collaboration on civil aircraft development will need particular attention.
For the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that our proposals are completely at variance with Plowden is stretching credulity to its limit. I can only assume that, as the right hon. Gentleman is not a dishonest man, he did not read the Plowden Report carefully enough.

Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of selective reading of Plowden. I wonder how thoroughly he has read it? In paragraph 501 the Plowden Report says:
The main purpose of any change in the arrangements, would be …
not "might be", but "would be"
…to foster a more direct relationship on military aircraft procurement between Service Departments and the industry.
What the Plowden Committee did not pronounce upon, because it said that it was outside its terms of reference, was how that more direct relationship should be brought about. It said quite definitely

that the purpose of any change should be to bring that about. What we want to know—because we cannot see it and we do not understand it from anything we have heard—is how that direct relationship is being brought about by this change. According to Plowden, that should be the main purpose.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Plowden Committee did not have it in its terms of reference. It did not consider the subject deeply, and it recommended the Government to make this review. That is what the Government were doing for six months. That is why there was the delay in bringing this Order before the House, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman was complaining about in his speech. We have done exactly what the Plowden Committee asked us to do. We had a review, and we came to the conclusion that the drawbacks that were detailed in the Plowden Report were sufficiently important that we should bear them in mind. Therefore we took all the procurement functions into the Ministry of Technology.
I would make only this final general point about the Plowden Committee. I doubt if any other Committee's Report has ever been implemented so efficiently and in such a short space of time. After all, it is only 12 months since the Report was first brought out. Rather than castigating my predecessor, he deserves the congratulations of the whole House for the tremendous job that he has done to put into effect the proposals of the Plowden Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, one on the estimation of projects. I agree with him that improvements are required here and required quickly. I am very hopeful that industry will soon respond to the proposals which we have put to it for improving the techniques of cost control.
A number of questions were asked about the staff of the combined Ministry. The right hon. Member for Mitcham asked whether there would be reductions in some categories offset by increases elsewhere. The short answer is, "Yes". We hope to make economies in the clerical staff by the use of computers. I would be misleading the House, however, if I gave the impression that there would be an overall reduction in the


staff required for what is, after all, a Ministry with vast responsibilities for the whole future of Britain's technology.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about research stations, as did the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in regard particularly to the Royal Radar Establishment. This point was raised also by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). As I explained last week, all these establishments are going into the Ministry of Technology. There are 18,000 staff at the establishments. Many of them are skilled and experienced scientific staff supported by the most modern equipment and facilities, some of it unique in Britain. We have a tremendous investment in these establishments amounting to a replacement value well over £200 million. It is one of our best technological assets in the United Kingdom.
At the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and Bedford, valuable research is being done in aerodynamics, metallurgy and structures. On automatic landing we have achieved results in advance of any other country in the world. We want these researches, which have such a direct economic advantage to our economy, to be strengthened and encouraged.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I asked the Minister two specific questions. The first was that there should be no derogation or fragmentation of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, that it should not be dispersed in any way and that the great concentration of scientific manpower should be fully maintained at Malvern. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me those assurances?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I am glad to give assurances on those points.
Before leaving Farnborough, may I say that much original work is being done there in connection with our space programme. We are proceeding with the development of the Black Arrow launcher and associated programme of satellite technology.
At the Royal Radar Establishment, much advanced work is being done on ground and airborne radar. It was, of course, at Malvern, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South knows only too well, that radar was originally developed.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Radar started at Bawdsey. It then went to Dundee on the outbreak of war and then to Worth Matravers. Then when France fell and the South Coast was under attack, it moved to Malvern. I hope that the Minister's other facts which he is giving during his winding-up speech are rather more accurate.

Mr. Stonehouse: I said, not "invented", but "developed", at Malvern. A lot of development work was done at Malvern for radar.
At Malvern, teams are involved in physics and electronics research. Their activities include the development of solid state device circuits, lasers and new components for micro-miniaturisation and integrated circuits. This work is most vital. It is important for the civil field and in the development, for instance, of small computers. The economic potential of this to our economy could be very great.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South will be interested to know that an Industrial Systems Unit has been established at Malvern to identify and exploit projects which have a civil application. I am pleased to assure the hon. Member that the Radar Research Establishment will have an important part to play within the general work of the Ministry of Technology.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the Minister for that crumb of comfort. I was otherwise engaged in 1940. I cannot, therefore, argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). I did not have a constituency association with Malvern before 1965, so I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of what has been said.

Mr. Stonehouse: At the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock, preliminary research is undertaken through to extensive testing of aircraft propulsion systems. Pyestock has one of the largest engine test facilities in the world. In the field of gas turbines and jet engines it is helping the United Kingdom to maintain its world lead.
As I have said, the total investment must be well over £200 million. The human investment in scientists and technicians is even more valuable.


It would be foolhardy to allow these skills to disperse. It is our object to strengthen and harness these skills. We aim to achieve a co-ordinated programme of research geared to the needs of the nation and of industry. There will be close co-operation with industry's own research and development programmes and with the universities. We also hope that the stimulus of the Establishments will encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas between different industries in Britain.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked a number of questions about defence expenditure. The defence expenditure within the Ministry of Technology will appear in the defence budget. The hon. Member also asked about air attachés. They will report to the Ministry of Technology on aircraft export questions.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) criticised the quality of technical advice available within the Ministry. I must disagree completely and utterly with his suggestion that the technical advice which we have available to Ministers is not good enough. Ministers are in daily contact, not only with senior administrative staff, but also with the technical side of the Ministry led by the Controller of Aircraft, the Controller of Electronics and the Chief Scientist. We also have direct contact with the research establishments, where we get the best scientific advice available in Britain.
A number of questions were raised about the space programme. The whole of the space responsibilities that were in my Ministry are going over to the Ministry of Technology. We will have continued responsibility for the E.L.D.O. projects. We are very glad that my predecessor, who is now Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has established the E.L.D.O. project with such stability as he did in the negotiations which he conducted last year.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of refuting the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who early the other morning launched into a bitter attack on the decisions that were made and were acted upon within my Ministry last year. The hon. Member sought to give the

impression that we had annoyed our allies by deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the Organisation.

Mr. David Webster: rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was advised that I would make these points, and I am sorry that he is not here.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. Did not the Minister have the opportunity to answer these points in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, Mr. Speaker, but declined to do so?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of fact or non-fact, on which I cannot comment.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was perfectly willing at 3 o'clock in the morning on Thursday last to reply to these points. As, however, hon. Members from the Conservative benches drew attention to the attendance in the House, we were unable to continue the debate. That is well known.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs informed the House on 11th July last, the Government never had any intention of leaving E.L.D.O. Therefore, the hon. Member's case against the Government was based on an entirely false premise. The fact is that other countries were themselves concerned about the progress of E.L.D.O., and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) reminded the House, the French queried the whole project early in 1965. It was against this background that Ministers met for a series of discussions over three months up to July last year.
My right hon. Friend achieved a quite remarkable success during those negotiations. The United Kingdom's share of the cost of the E.L.D.O. project was reduced from 38·79 to 27 per cent. In itself, this provides an important saving for the United Kingdom taxpayer. We have cut the contribution by about one-third.

Mr. R. Carr: On a point of order. Is this in order on the Motion, Mr. Speaker? We on this side are interested in E.L.D.O. and would have liked the chance to debate the question of the wise expenditure of Government


money. Is it, however, in order that the Minister should deal with this matter and give what in our opinion, is a very partial and whitewashing view of the proceedings, which we may well not have a chance to answer or debate?

Mr. Speaker: Whether it is partial or not is not a question for the Chair, but it can be in order only if it is connected with the question whether we transfer the Ministry of Aviation's functions to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse: In itself this is a very important saving. We have cut our expenditure considerably, and, of course, it is a tremendous help to the Ministry of Technology which is now going to take on those responsibilities. The fact that my predecessor has been able to establish collaboration with our European allies on the E.L.D.O. project on such worthwhile grounds enables us to go forward with the space programme, for which we will now be responsible, with great confidence indeed. My right hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of the whole House on his achievement.
In addition to persuading our partners to accept a reduction in our contribution, he persuaded them to accept—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. E.L.D.O. went to the Ministry of Technology a long time ago when the House set up the Ministry of Technology. It is not a new responsibility which is being switched under the present Order which is being discussed. Therefore, it would seem to be out of order and not suitable for discussion today.

Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. Member says makes sense to me. Hon. Members must, as the Chair has endeavoured to persuade them to do throughout this debate, link whatever they say to the question of whether the Ministry of Aviation and its functions should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Ministry of Aviation's functions at this precise moment include responsibilities for E.L.D.O. These responsibilities are being transferred, if this Order is accepted by the House, to the Ministry of Technology. A lot of hon. Members during the debate have

raised questions about our space programme and its future, and, therefore, I am entitled, I think, to explain to them that the Ministry of Technology is accepting those responsibilities with every confidence because of the excellent work which has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
As I was explaining, the overall ceiling has been set of £118 million. Previously there had been no such ceiling, which, of course, could have led us to exorbitant expenditure.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. I was myself several times pulled up for attempting to refer to the figures we are spending on E.L.D.O. and speaking on much the same lines as the Minister is now. As the rules of order are the same for back benchers as they are for Ministers, I think he should reply properly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will, I am sure, not want to make any suggestion that he is criticising the Chair. When he tells the Chair that the rules of order apply to Ministers as well as to back benchers he is stating a truism of which the Chair is aware.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order. The Minister has gone into a wide debate. May I apologise for not having been here when he started to do so? Of course, I was unaware that this matter would be raised. But may I reinforce my hon. Friend's point of order, in the sense that the Minister is seeking to reply to a debate which I initiated on another subject on a different day? This certainly is, to put it mildly, discourteous conduct. If he is in order, surely he should have let those of us interested in this subject know he was going to do it.

Mr. Speaker: That, as I have said, is out of order unless he can link the points he is making in reply to the debate to the question whether the Ministry of Aviation should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse: I advised the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that I would seek to deal with the E.L.D.O. question within the general context of the transfer of the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.
A number of questions have been raised about the improvement of technical efficiency within the Ministry. We have established the concept—

Mr. R. Carr: Further to that point of order. The Minister has sought to justify what he has just been saying about E.L.D.O. on the basis that he was seeking to answer inquiries which we have made in this House, and I believe that he was also referring to inquiries I made, but the inquiries which we on this side of the House made were, whether there was to be unification of management of space within the Government as part and parcel of this change. If he is going to justify what he has said by pretending to answer our questions, should he not actually do so?

Mr. Stonehouse: I was going to deal with that point, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants a reply to it now I will give it him immediately. The functions for which the Ministry of Aviation has been responsible in regard to space are being transferred to the Ministry of Technology. The other interests in space which are held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will continue to be held by those respective Ministers. It is not felt advisable to take those from the field of interests which they now have in space which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are somewhat functional, particularly as far as the Postmaster-General is concerned.
In regard to the efficient control of projects, I think the House would like to know that we have already established a concept of project managers which gives the technical men an opportunity of co-ordinating the whole programme—for instance, of Concord, where the Director General now has financial as well as technical responsibilities. This system will continue within the Ministry of Technology and I think will lead to a great increase in efficiency.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asked whether we were following the American example of developing information banks. The Ministry of Technology has plans to provide a wide range of information and advisory services, and these will include

the aircraft field as well. The intention will be to distribute carefully sifted information to interested firms, and the plan envisages the circulation of information to some thousands of firms.
The hon. Gentleman raised questions about my speech at Blyth on 21st January last, when I said that the industry was in a more favourable position than during the last year of Conservative rule. Coming from the author of "Murder of TSR.2" I thought this was a particularly interesting comment. In that book the hon. Gentleman described the extraordinary muddle and lack of control of the then Conservative Ministers responsible for TSR.2. He should also know, as a director of Handley Page, that whereas the last Conservative Government, which he supported, refused financial assistance to Handley Page, we have given them direct help in the development of the Jetstream.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough on this occasion to give publicity to my book. I hope it will help, but it is only fair to point out to him that the whole theme and purpose of the book—if he has not read it I shall be delighted to send him a copy—was to show what disastrous results flowed from the decision of his Government to cancel very major projects which I mentioned in my speech. It was perfectly legitimate at the same time to have criticised the handling of these things throughout a farly long period, but the theme and purpose of the book was that and that alone.

Mr. Stonehouse: In a very interesting chapter the hon. Gentleman referred also to the muddle of Conservative Ministers in the last year they were in power.
I think the House recognises that the industry is in very good heart. It is in better shape now than for many years. It has—

Mr. R. Carr: On a point of order. In the opening speech which I made from this Box I hope and believed, or you would have corrected me, Mr. Speaker, that I kept strictly to the terms of reference of the Order before us. I did not indulge in leading into a general aviation debate and the political merits of various policies. I do ask that we should be protected from this sort of reply.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister just now replied to a question which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raised. He had before that been seeking to argue, I gather, that the Ministry of Aviation is in a state to be handed over to the Ministry of Technology, but he must not dilate on that.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Speaker, in moving this Order, I spoke for 11 minutes. In replying to my speech, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) spoke for 39 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: That may or may not be true, but we must get back to the Order.

Mr. Stonehouse: The only point that I wanted to make is that the Ministry of Aviation may be dying but, during the last two and a half years, a remarkable job has been done to save the industry from the errors and mistakes made by the last Conservative Administration. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the Plowden Committee and the implementation of its recommendations, they forget that that Committee was set up because of the errors of the last Conservative Administration, and not because of errors and mistakes made by any of my right hon. Friends.
During the debate, a particular question was raised by the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I know, too, that it interests the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The Shorts concern is a very important one in terms of employment in Belfast. In regard to that firm, I have this afternoon had a useful discussion with Mr. Faulkner, the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce. We have exchanged ideas about the future of Shorts. I have told Mr. Faulkner that we want Shorts to be a viable aircraft-producing unit. We do not want it to undertake projects that will not be successful in financial terms. We want it to be a useful part of the aircraft industry, and we hope that there will be projects which it can undertake that will help it to maintain a large part of the employment for which it is now responsible.
We have had an extremely helpful debate, and I have done my best to reply to the detailed points which have been raised in the course of the two mornings that we have discussed this proposal. I

hope that the House is now ready to give approval to the transfer of functions from the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am very glad to follow the hon. Gentleman, because he is one of the few Ministers in the Labour Government for whom I have had any respect in the last two years. He has done a good job of work compared with his colleagues.
However, when he talks about the success of the industry in the last two years, may I remind him that the exports of the airframe and engine sides of the industry amounted to something like £212 million, but the orders in respect of that sum were placed well before the General Election of 1964. The Labour Government have nothing to crow about when they talk about this industry. They have done a great disservice to it. At first, the present Home Secretary had a direct responsibility for Concord. What happened within a matter of weeks of the Labour Government taking office was that the wretched Home Secretary, at that time one of the few pro-Europeans in the Labour Party, was sent over to Paris to cancel it. Of all the disgraceful acts, that was one.
However, it has been agreed that the Concord is to go on, and it is a great and hopeful project which can put Britain and France well in the forefront. But I have still some doubt about the Government's intentions. It is extraordinary, for example, that foreign airlines have placed orders and are about to "firm up" on them, when B.O.A.C. has not firmed up. If the British Government are looking for export orders for this enormous investment, I should have thought that firm orders from B.O.A.C. would clinch the matter. I have always been confident that British scientists and technicians could produce what they were expecting to. We have a three-year lead over the Americans who are still talking about an aircraft on paper, and they have their own problems on the engine side. Here is Britain's opportunity. The prototype Concord will fly within a year. Why does not B.O.A.C. place an order, with a Government guarantee behind it? It is very important for this great project that something should be done in that direction.
Every few weeks we hear rumours that the project might be cancelled. I suppose that they are circulated by Americans who are trying to denigrate British efforts. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) shaking his head, but I am sure that he reads his newspapers—

Mr. John Rankin: I have met not only French but also British personnel engaged in the building of the Concord. I have never heard any of the rumours which the hon. Gentleman is now voicing.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not want to go into this matter too far, and it would not be right if I did. The hon. Gentleman must know that American aircraft salesmen go round the world, including such places as Australia, saying, "If you buy British aircraft now, in five years' time you will not get spares because there will not be any aircraft industry". The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of what is going on.
Before the project is handed over to the Ministry of Technology, I want to see the Government firming up, giving real orders and not paper ones. Can we be told what is the position about noise? Sales of this aircraft in the future depend a great deal on the tests which the Government are carrying out on supersonic noise.
Another point which concerns me is one which has already been handed over, and that is the provision of aircrew to fly British aircraft. The brain drain is taking place to a greater degree than ever before. Aircrew are tempted away from Britain to foreign countries both in the Commonwealth and in North

America, by large salaries. Some have gone, although a few have come back. The number of pilots being trained at the various training schools such as Hamble, Kidlington and Perth, allowing for wastage, will not meet the demands of British airlines in the years ahead.

I come, then, to the question of Shorts. This firm is the oldest airframe company in Great Britain, and it has splendid achievements behind it. I recognise that there must be a limitation upon the magnitude of the research work put into any new project, but I well remember the present Foreign Secretary standing at the Dispatch Box almost two years ago and saying about Shorts that the Government would bring in machine tool manufacture. However, nothing has happened. It was an empty promise. It is not good enough for a Cabinet Minister to tell the people of Northern Ireland, with their high unemployment rate, that Shorts will be given machine tool manufacture and then do nothing. The workers of Northern Ireland expect a better deal than that.

I ask the Minister to come to the Box again tonight by leave of the House or at a future date to give an assurance to the House of Commons and in particular to Northern Irish Members about the future of that firm. The Government have had two years to think it over, and nothing has been done. It is about time that something was done.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 128.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Anderson, Donald
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)


Ashley, Jack
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, [...].)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Bence, Cyril
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dell, Edmund


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Chapman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Coe, Denis
Dewar, Donald


Binns, John
Coleman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Bishop, E. S.
Concannon, J. D.
Dickens, James


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dobson, Ray


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Doig, Peter




Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Park, Trevor


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, John (Reading)
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, E.
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Finch, Harold
Lubbock, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rose, Paul


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Ryan, John


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Snow, Julian


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Stonehouse, John


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Hamling, William
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Robert
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tomney, Frank


Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Horner, John
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David (Consett)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon A Radnor)


Howie, W.
Neal, Harold
Weitzman, David


Hoy, James
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oswald, Thomas
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Yates, Victor


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paget, R. T.



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Corfield, F. V.
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. P.


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hastings, Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Doughty, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Braine, Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Brewis, John
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Foster, Sir John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, Henry
Grant, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Grant-Ferris, R,
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cooke, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)




Loveys, W. H.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tilney, John


MacArthur, Ian
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McMaster, Stanley
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Neil
Peel, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maude. Angus
Peyton, John
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Prior, J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Pym, Francis
Webster, David


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Quenneli, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn, Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


More, Jasper
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sharples, Richard



Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, John
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Hector Monro.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DISSOLUTION) ORDER

8.18 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.
I think that I am at last taking action which will commend itself to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I say at once that this Order has been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which the hon. Gentleman is the distinguished Chairman, and the Committee has determined that the special attention of the House need not be drawn to it, so I shall not deal with the details of the Order.
I move this Order with some nostalgia. The staff at the Department has been small in number, but it has worked very hard, and I believe very effectively.
The Order comes as no surprise. The Government in their election manifesto made it clear that they intended to reorganise Whitehall, and one of the items

of reorganisation was bringing the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was created for two main reasons. The first was the need to coordinate national policies relating to land and natural resources. The second was to group together within one Department all the various functions relating to land use which now constitute the Ministry. It was felt that a single Department should have full responsibility for the availability of our natural resources to meet the needs of the community, and in particular the Ministry was given the specific objective of securing the establishment of a Land Commission as soon as possible. The objective was to secure a general oversight of land use.
A number of functions were assembled together in the Department, all relating in one form or another to land use—forestry, tree preservation, commons and allotments, a miscellaneous group, the most important of which was the apportionment of rents, National Parks and the Countryside Commission, water, where we devised a delicate demarcation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and later the Ordnance Survey.
Also important was the question of information, advice and intelligence, and we therefore set up the Natural Resources Advisory Committee which later became known as the Stamp Committee. I am sure that the whole House felt the loss of Sir Douglas Stamp when he died in Mexico.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Surely one of the original objectives was that the Department should be responsible


for planning, policy and procedures. Does the Minister agree that one reason why we have this Order before us is that these functions were snatched away by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at an early stage?

Mr. Willey: That was not so. I will take up that point later. Our belief was that we could broadly separate strategic and tactical planning of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
When we debated a previous Transfer of Functions Order I said that one of the major purposes in setting up a Department is to provide a separate and articulate voice in Government. This has decisively affected the various functions that we took over.
I have mentioned the Forestry Commission. We had the Forestry Ministers acknowledging the valuable assistance given by the Estimates Committee's Report. We carried out a comprehensive reorganisation of the Commission. We changed its form and established four full-time commissioners. We changed the structure of management and provided for the functional reorganisation of the staff. By so doing we provided a much more efficient commercial undertaking and, having carried out this task, we decided that the proper thing to do, as the Order does, was to transfer those functions back to the Ministry of Agriculture.
We carried out a job which would have been difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture to carry out at the time but, as a result of the reorganisation, we have given emphasis to the production side of the Forestry Commission and we feel that it is now right that this function should go back to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Equally important, we have encouraged the Commission to play its proper part in promoting countryside policy. This is a matter which we provide for in the countryside legislation. The emphasis in the Forestry Commission should be on production, and for this reason—now that we have carried out the reorganisation—it is right that this function should go back to its former Ministry.
In the case of commons, we brought in the Commons Registration Act. The machinery of registration is now fully in operation. To examine the question of

allotments we set up Professor Thorpe's Committee, which may lead to further legislation. On the apportionment of land, we have done a considerable amount to meet social injustices, especially in the north-west of England.
On the Ordnance Survey, I feel that their products are the tools of planning. Again, we reorganised the programme of the Survey. I felt that there was a serious lack of up-to-date, large-scale plans, and we provided for an increase in the staff of the Survey by 20 per cent. over 10 years, bringing forward its programmes so that large-scale maps for the major built-up areas should be completed by 1967ߝ68 and in order that the re-survey of the whole country could be completed by 1980. Although those functions also came from the Ministry of Agriculture we feel that there is no case for transferring them back.
We reorganised the National Parks Commission prospective to the countryside legislation which will provide for a Countryside Commission. We introduced the White Paper on Leisure in the Countryside. As far as we can implement this by administrative means, we are already doing so. We have improved the machinery for tree preservation orders, and so on, but the implementation of the White Paper will largely depend on legislation.
We have had a demarcation between ourselves and the Ministry of Housing in water matters. My main responsibility concerned the Water Resources Board, then newly instituted, but which I can claim is now fully established. We have also introduced a new scale into our thinking about water. We have the Board's report on the South-East and it is proceeding with a study on the North. The other day I announced that we were going ahead with the feasibility study for Morecambe.
Having got so far let me say that I was struck by two major features affecting the responsibilities of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. The first is that this has been a very small Ministry. It has been a core Ministry. The second feature is that, depending on the Ministry, we have had satellite organisaions with various degrees of autonomous power—the Forestry Commission, the National Parks Commission, the Water Resources Board,


the Ordnance Survey, the Natural Resources Advisory Committee and now the Land Commission. We had a form of organisation in which the day-to-day administration was hived off to these dependent satellite bodies.
There is much to be said for this form of administration. We have a lot to learn from this experience. There is much to be said for divorcing day-to-day responsibility from policy making and for avoiding duplication when both responsibilities are housed together. In the Ministry we had a remarkably small headquarters staff.
In the past we have done one or two tasks in respect of all these functions of the Ministry; we have either been establishing them, as in the case of the Water Resources Board, or had a major job of reorganisation, as in the case of the Forestry Commission. We are proceeding in this direction in respect of the National Parks Commission, which will become the Countryside Commission.
As a result these bodies are more autonomous and independent than they would have been otherwise, and we are therefore more amenable to dissolution than we would otherwise have been because, in each case, these bodies have a markedly greater degree of independence than they had before, and in this sense they are much more footloose.

Mr. Rippon: Does this mean that fewer Ministers will be necessary in consequence?

Mr. Willey: I will answer that question when I come to the dissolution aspect. There has previously been some criticism of the attachment of these bodies to this or that Ministry, and here we have at any rate streamlined what I call these satellite bodies and, by doing that, we have, in a sense, made them footloose.
The second feature is that the major tasks which were given to this Department were legislative. To the original tasks there was added the job of preparing and introducing legislation on leasehold reform, which we took over from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on occasion, one of the purposes of the creation of this Department was the concentration of Ministerial attention on legislation which

was needed speedily; and that has been the result of the setting up of this Department.
As I pointed out, we have the commons registration legislation, which had been lying in the pigeon-holes for six years or more, and the Land Commission legislation is complete. On leasehold reform, we have introduced a White Paper and shall be introducing legislation in the next few weeks. We also have a White Paper on the countryside and are actively preparing legislation on that topic. Thus, the major responsibility was legislative and finite.
We had another responsibility of the same category, which was concerned with bringing water supply into public ownership. Here, as I have mentioned, we have brought the Water Resources Board forward to a fully established and effective body. We have properly waited to see what part the Board could play and we are also now faced with the question of the reorganisation of local government as a whole.
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham would argue that we should create legislation to keep a Department alive. It just so happens that in the past couple of years or so we have had these major legislative tasks which, as I have explained, are well on the way to completion. These tasks were made clear at the General Election, when the Labour Party put forward proposals for reorganising Whitehall, to improve efficiency, to provide for better co-ordination and to provide for common services, particularly statistical information.
I referred to the Natural Resources Advisory Committee. I have in the past claimed the virtue of being anxious to avoid duplication. The moment one thinks in terms of common services, the purposes they serve and their division—the division to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham called attention—one realises that there is a case for streamlining and for avoiding duplication. In this context, I should have thought that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources would attract attention.

Mr. Rippon: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say why it is apparently


necessary for the Government to have four times as many Ministers to deal with these matters as the then Conservative Government had if he is saying that, to achieve the desired objectives, this Department should cease and should be dissolved? Dissolution aside, why is it necessary to have this number of Ministers?

Mr. Willey: This is a question of Ministerial responsibility. I am concerned at the moment with the far more important question of avoiding duplication and overlapping between Departments. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I will answer his question because I, too, realise that it is a crucial one. It is affected by the Order, but at the moment I am dealing with the dissolution of the Ministry.
I said that if one is considering Whitehall in this context, one must obviously look at these three Ministries; and I have emphasised that if one takes the various parts of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources one sees that one part would appear to fall automatically to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in the light of the reorganisation, the new status of the National Parks Commission, the activities of the proposed Countryside Commission and so on, and the Land Commission. I assure the House that it is my intention that the Land Commission shall be an independent body, substantially exercising its own discretion and judgment—

Mr. Rippon: We understand that, but will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will it need a Minister?

Mr. Willey: I will answer the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must contain himself. He has been away from the House for a very long time. Had he been here attending to his duties he might know better what we have been discussing. [Interruption.] That happens to be true.
One must consider common services from the point of view of intelligence and what has evolved in relation to the Natural Resources Advisory Committee. This Committee had evolved to the point where it was working through three major sub-committees, the minerals sub-committee, the land data sub-committee and the land use sub-committee. Looking at it in the light of re-organisation we felt

that the minerals sub-committee could more properly become effective as a consultative committee to the Natural Environment Research Council. The other two can serve the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
We have to look at executive functions if we are considering a Department. There has to be a sufficient basis of executive functions to justify the division of Departmental responsibilities. We have the division between broad strategic planning and tactical planning. I should have doubt about this providing a sufficiently broad base for a Departmental responsibility, but if one extends this we come against the problem which the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on, and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) too—the relationship with tactical planning.
This is a difficult point. We have to try to formulate a distinction between strategic and tactical planning. It will take time to evolve, but we shall evolve it. This is the problem we have eventually to solve. It is a problem which will concern and affect the Government for a considerable time as other forms of overall responsibility are developed.
Turning back to the problems which have faced us and looking at the question in the context of the re-organisation of Whitehall, I think everyone looks for economy of staff and avoidance of duplication. The more natural thing to do is for the smaller department to join the larger department. In order to meet the point about strategic and tactical planning being brought together, we also have to face the problem that if we hive off planning responsibilities from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government there will be a major redeployment of staff which would disrupt the Department for some time, which is something one would hesitate to do, especially in present circumstances. This argument will continue.
There is also the question, which has been repeatedly drawn to our attention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends, of the local authorities. With the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and several other hon. Members, we discussed this


point in relation to countryside policy. I have always taken the view that, though this may be a difficulty, we cannot detach the problem from local authorities. The problem is integral to the local authorities. The difficulty here is that it is all very well to suggest doing so but one has to face the consequences of doing it.
An hon. Member raised the parallel case of the Department of Education and Science. One does not need a Ministry of local government to be responsible for all the channels of communication with local authorities. At the same time, particularly in the light of what I have said about avoidance of duplication and overlapping, one does not want to have them if it can be avoided. This Department would be another line of communication down to local authorities, a parallel line of communication. I put it no more strongly than that one would hesitate to do it unless one felt that an overriding case could be made.
I think, in the light of these factors, that this is the right decision to take. I have set about fully integrating my staff, and that has been carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises the question of the Ministerial responsibility. I shall be translated into a Minister of State within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I think it is right, in view of what I have said, that within that Department there should be created a special relationship, that I should have specific responsibilities broadly for land use and planning. This means that I remain responsible for the Land Commission, leasehold reform, countryside, and policy and legislation on planning. This, I believe, is right. This must be within the general concept of a single department.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will be in charge of the Department. Particularly in the light of our experience, particularly in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would probably say, I think that we ought to create this specific field of responsibility. This is why—I have at last come to the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised—we want this specific ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember saying very often that the

Land Commission would be subject to the planning authority of the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Is not he now going to merge both those functions in his own person?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair enough point. This is something I have argued. I am accepting his support that, if we take these steps for integration, we should provide that within the Department there is this Minister of State responsibility.

Mr. Rippon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman putting it a little misleadingly by saying that there will be a Minister with specific responsibility for land use matters? Will not the specific responsibility rest entirely with the Minister of Housing and Local Government? The point I am putting to the Minister is: why is it necessary to have in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government four times as many Ministers in the House of Commons as were necessary under the Conservative Government, all of them much more highly paid?

Mr. Willey: They are much more productive.

Mr. Rippon: Not in housing.

Mr. Willey: In housing, amongst other things. Over the years they will be much more productive still.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman. He argues that there must be a Minister with special responsibility for strategic planning as opposed to tactical planning. He has just said that the main reason why his Department was set up was to evolve a distinction between the two, which it has utterly failed to do, and this is why it is going back to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I find it difficult to follow this. What is the point of having a Minister in charge of something distinct from tactical planning if he does not know the difference?

Mr. Willey: I do not complain for a moment at the hon. Gentleman making this point. We have tried to divorce strategic from tactical planning. The hon. Gentleman maintains that this is a divorce which cannot be attained. I have said that this is something which we will


evolve. It is difficult. It is affected by the reorganisation of local government. It is affected by the development of the regional organisation and other factors. For effective machinery at the moment these two stages of planning must be brought together. That is what we are doing. That having been done, there must be a specific responsibility. This is a solution which I am convinced is right in present circumstances. It is not a final solution. There is never a final solution.

Mr. Rippon: rose—

Mr. Willey: No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak. I have given way a lot. I do not want to detain the House further. I am anxious to give hon. Members the opportunity of participating in the debate. No decision on Government machinery is final. This is the best decision in current circumstances. It is the right pragmatic decision. For that reason, I commend it to the House.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I cannot say that my emotion or, I believe, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends can be described by the word which the right hon. Gentleman used for his own emotion—nostalgia. Rather is it anger and exasperation at the futility of the whole exercise—financing a Ministry, running it for 18 months, and then sending it bankrupt. This may be the Socialist Government's dynamism. It is certainly the Socialist Government's inefficiency.
Our original objection to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was not necessarily to its existence or to the idea of such a Ministry. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) put it very clearly in the debate on 9th March, 1965, when he said that there might be a case for a Ministry to deal with land use and economic planning. It was to the inefficient allocation of functions to the Ministry that we objected. Instead of all regional economic planning of the use of land being vested in the Ministry, all the right hon. Gentleman seemed to get in the end was—I was thinking of saying—a little bit of mineral water, a little bit of minerals and a little bit of water, and not the complete administrative functions in respect of either of those or the land. He had

part of water planning and administration, part of mineral planning, plus the National Parks, and a Parliamentary Secretary's job of running a rather troublesome Bill through the House. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that a major part of his function was legislative, that is, getting legislation through the House.
Perhaps it would be right to say that he was given a little bit of mineral water, because it was all fizzy to start with, it had no substance at the beginning and it has had no substance since. It certainly produced a lot of wind at the time from his right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now Leader of the House.
I shall quote from what the then Minister of Housing said in order to see what the intention was in setting up this Ministry, how far it has served its purpose, and in what state it is being handed over to a department of another Ministry. In a town and country planning debate on 25th March, 1965, we were told by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government that the Ministry was created in order that it should itself create the Land Commission. He said:
The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources arose to start with out of one simple and practical fact",
and he went on to say that that was the Land Commission. Not even the greatest friends of the Land Commission or the Land Commission Bill would ever call it either simple or practical, or even a fact. It was just horror fiction when we came to read it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to
this tremendous measure of reform which, when it is completed, will alter the balance of power in the Government".
What on earth did he mean by that? If that was so, if the balance has been changed, is it right that we should unbalance the whole thing by dissolving the Ministry? Anyway, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman knew what he meant himself, because he went on to say:
I am not going to predict what the exact balance of power will be in Whitehall when the Land Commission is in full operation, but it will be different from today, because it is not possible to create a Land Commission without making big changes in the structure of Whitehall. It will not be possible to have it all under the Ministry of Housing and Local


Government as it was before. That is the basic reason why there are two Ministries. It is because we have foresight.
I grant that the right hon. Gentleman had foresight for a matter of 18 months ahead, but, if it was not possible at that time to have the Land Commission under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, how is is possible now? Or is this just a change for change's sake?
The right hon. Gentleman also boasted:
We have made more changes in Whitehall in our short time in office than they made in 13 years, or anybody did in the previous 25 years,…".
Has the Order come before us tonight just for the sake of another change to prove the boast of the right hon. Gentleman, now the Leader of the House, in that debate in March, 1965? What he said, and what touches upon some of the interventions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) during the Minister's speech, was:
Why did we want the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources on one side of the Ministry, and the Department of Economic Affairs on the other?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 941.]
He gave two reasons: first, the Land Commission and the new form of land control and planning; and, secondly, public ownership of water. They were the only two reasons he then gave for the creation of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. Those two reasons, nationalisation of land and nationalisation of water, were pretty big reasons. I suppose that the immense difficulty he found in getting one Bill, the nationalisation of land, through the House has made him, as it were, call in the next one and decide that he would carry out the nationalisation of water by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I wish to revert to that significant remark:
Why did we want the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources on one side and the Department of Economic Affairs on the other?
Some of us wonder whether the intended basic function, land use and the availability of land, should not go to the Department of Economic Affairs—perhaps in a new edition—and not back to the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-

ment. Land and natural resources were surely a wider concept than housing and local government originally. Land use is surely an essential part of industrial, commercial, conurbation and regional development, and not merely of town development and the kind of planning one associates with a planning application to build a garage in one's garden or a bungalow on a plot next door?
In its 18 months' life, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources never got off the ground and on to the higher and wider plain of planning for national development. The Minister mentioned the Advisory Council, and he told us that three sub-committees to that council have been set up. But it does not need a Ministry or Minister to set up three subcommittees. If that is all he can show for the grand words with which his Ministry was introduced, perhaps the House should say, "We shall not let him disband at this stage. Let him get on with the job he set out to do." I doubt whether my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with that sentiment. I do not agree with it myself.

Mr. John Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue such a fearful line of argument. I am in a hurry to say goodbye to the Ministry.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will realise that what I said was more sarcasm than seriousness.

Mr. Peyton: I am relieved.

Mr. Page: Some two years ago, in an article in the Sunday Times on the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources Mr. Anthony Howard called it "The waif of Whitehall". The name has stuck. That article properly debunked the Prime Minister's grandiose description at that time of the Ministry when the Prime Minister said that it was responsible:
for future policies relating to the availability of land as the community needs it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 215.]
Just about the same time, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Ministry would be responsible for general oversight and assessment of the use of land throughout the country.
The Ministry never became a land use Ministry. It could not while the Minister


of Housing and Local Government hogged the planning powers and the Department of Economic Affairs dealt separately and exclusively with economic planning. So, 18 months after those flowery phrases and descriptions of what the Ministry was to be, the Prime Minister's description for the purpose of dissolving the Ministry was very different. In one rather peremptory sentence he said:
I intend in due course to discontinue the office of Minister of Land and Natural Resources as head of a separate Department. This will involve legislation. Integration of the staff of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources with that of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is far advanced…".
No reason for the dissolution was given until he was pressed, and then he said, in explaining why the Ministry was to be dissolved or why it ever came into existence if it was now to be dissolved:
…if we had not had the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources during the last 18 months we would not have been able to secure Ministerial concentration by my right hon. Friend on those two most valuable Measures, the Land Commission Bill and the proposals now coming forward for leasehold enfranchisement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1128–31]
I am sure that the country would have been a great deal happier if the right hon. Gentleman had not had time to concentrate on that terrible Measure, the Land Commission Act. However, according to the Prime Minister, that was the reason for the Ministry. Having given birth, as it were to one monster, the Land Commission Bill, and being pregnant with another, leasehold reform, this waif of Whitehall has to go. No longer is it to be this great survey of available land, this great Domesday Book, but it is doomsday for the Minister.
Incidentally, during its existence it has been quite an expensive waif, and again I wonder whether we should allow it to go out of existence without having some account of what has happened to the money spent on it. In 1965–66 it cost £840,000. The Civil Estimates for 1966–67 estimated that for that year it would cost £2,000,617. I tried to find out from the Estimates whether there was any saving in any other Department or Ministry. I looked at the Estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government hoping to find a saving of between £2 million and £3 million, but instead I found that its figures had risen from £24 million to

£43 million. There was certainly no saving in setting up a new Ministry.
We were told at one stage that half of the Minister's staff had been those brought from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and that the other staff were new, recruited to the Ministry. Are those new members of the staff to go into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Have they been integrated into that Ministry? If so, I assume that there will be a substantial increase in the staff of that Ministry.
If they do go into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government what functions do they take with them? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a few during his presentation of the Order, but there has always been very considerable confusion as to what functions his Ministry was undertaking, and what he was doing with those which he admitted to be handling. The Order mentions quite a number and he mentioned some today. If one looks at the 1965 Order, one gets an idea of the assembly of functions relating to land use.
At this stage we ought to look back. There is a convenient point to do this and it is at Question Time on 21st December, 1964. The Minister then set out on his jobs and we can compare that beginning with the state in which he is abandoning them and transferring them to the Department of another Ministry. On that day he was questioned about a great number of functions, and at column 829 he said that he was studying proposals for amending the National Parks legislation and that the matter had his "most active and sympathetic attention". Will he go on giving them that active and sympathetic attention in his new capacity, because very little has emerged so far? He was asked about the reorganisation of water undertakings and said:
The Government are not yet ready to bring forward reorganisation proposals.
At least he might have produced a little bit of print about it, a nice White Paper on the reorganisation. An awful lot of money was spent on printing in his Department.
I see that his bill for printing went up from £30,000 in 1965–66 to £223,000 in 1966–67. That must have been the cost of the Schedules to the Land Commission Bill. On the same day his Parliamentary Secretary stone-walled a number of


penetrating questions on the Forestry Commission. He said that estuarial barrage schemes were under examination—"under very active consideration". Are they still under that examination and consideration? Very little has emerged from his Ministry about them. He was asked about minerals. The Minister said at column 837:
I am considering how information about the location and accessibility of minerals should be collated and supplemented so that we may have a comprehensive picture of these resources.
Apparently the Minister is handing over without ever having decided on how that information should be considered, beyond setting up a subcommittee of the Advisory Council. He was asked about land use and he said:
…I have the responsibility for providing what has not been provided before, and that is a survey of land use, the determination of land use, and that sort of thing…
He also said:
My contribution to the formulation of regional plans will be in the field of the availability and use of natural resources, and I am at present considering how my Department can best equip itself to tackle the tasks involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 832–843.]
The Minister has had 18 months to consider this and as far as I can see from his speech today, all that he has done is to set up a sub-committee and then disappear into another Ministry Department.
Mention of regional plans brings me back to my previous point—the failure of the Ministry in the planning sphere in which it should have operated. Throughout our debates and Parliamentary Questions, the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have made great play with the fact that previous Governments had made no land survey, that it was absolutely vital that there should be such a survey, and that it could be done only by this brand new separate Ministry—and not only one survey The Parliamentary Secretary had a tremendous appetite for surveys. He said that there would be a mineral survey and that it would come out as quickly as possible.
What has happened to them all and what will happen to them in future once the Minister disappears into a Department of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? In face of all that failure,

is it expedient at this stage—this is what we are asked to decide tonight—to transfer these functions to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? I use the word "expedient" because it is used in the Order and in the parent Act to the Order.
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for coming here tonight because, as he knows, I wish to raise a rather technical legal point on the Order but one of very great importance. Schedule I of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965, is a list of Ministerial appointments with a salary against each. The Schedule, with Section 1 of the Act, is the authority for the payment of the salary, among other salaries, of £8,500 per annum to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. One cannot ascertain from the Schedule the total number of Ministers who can be paid. For example, it just says, "Minister of State, £8,500", although we know that already there are several Ministers of State.
Section 2 of the Act sets out the limits for several groups of Ministers. For example, there are to be not more than so many Secretaries of State and Ministers of State. Taking Section 2 and Schedule 1 together, the Act authorises the payment of 110 Ministers. I hope that the Minister will agree with my mathematics.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): It is 112.

Mr. Rippon: The largest Government in the world.

Mr. Page: It is amazing the way in which the Government increases. Even since the 1965 Act the number has gone up by two.
When Ministerial functions are transferred, Section 1(3) of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, allows the 1965 Act to be altered. That is why Article 3(2) of the Order alters the number of Ministers and the names of Ministers in the Schedule to which I have referred. It provides:
In Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 the references to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources shall be omitted.
Section 2(2) of the 1965 Act, as amended by the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order, 1967, which we have just been discussing, provides that the number of


persons to whom salaries may be paid as Ministers of State shall not exceed 20. It says:
…for the word 'twenty' there shall be substituted the words 'twenty-one'.
The word used in the 1946 Act, permitting this sort of alteration, is the word "modification". The enactments regulating the number of offices in respect to which salaries can be paid may be modified, but may be modified only on three conditions. Those three conditions are, first, that there is no increase in the aggregate number of paid Ministers; secondly, that there is no increases in the amount of salary paid to anyone in the list of Ministers; and, thirdly, that it is expendient to make the modification.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the Government cannot advise Her Majesty to make this Order in Council unless they satisfy Parliament that it is expedient to make this modification to the 1965 Act, that it is expedient to delete the words "Minister of Aviation" and to increase the number of Ministers of State. The Order starts off with the words:
Whereas it is expedient that certain functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources be transferred to the Secretary of State,…".
That is not the point of the Statute under which this Order is made. Having decided that the transfer shall be made, the question is whether it is expedient to modify the 1965 Act by deleting the Minister from the list and increasing the Ministers of State. It is not a question whether it is expedient that the functions should be transferred, but whether it is expedient that this alteration should be made to the 1965 Act. Having taken away a Minister's Ministry from him, is it expedient to call that sort of torso-less apparition by another name and pay him the same salary?
I do not know whether he is to be paid the same salary. In the list in Schedule 1 the Minister of Aviation is to be paid £8,500 and a Minister of State is to be paid £8,500. I must assume, unless he tells the House otherwise, that he is not to be responsible for a Ministry but he will be paid the same salary. A Ministerial salary, surely, must contain some element, some factor, for responsibility, and we ought to consider whether he should be paid the same when he is

no longer responsible for a Ministry—indeed, whether it is necessary to have a Minister of State to do the job at all.
As a matter of fact, of course, we have no assurance in the Order that this extra Minister of State will be in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I appreciate that perhaps I may have set the cat among the pigeons between the Law Officers, but they possibly missed that last point of mine whilst they were discussing the matter.
I said that we have no assurance in the Order that the extra Minister of State will, in fact, be in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or, if he starts there, that he will remain there, because the Order mentions no destination for this extra Minister of State. So how can we judge whether it is expedient that he be appointed or not? This change by Order could be used by any Ministry. Anyway, why a Minister of State? Why not a Parliamentary Secretary? Why do we retain both? There is to be a Minister of State and a Parliamentary Secretary to this Department.
Of course, the aggregate of Parliamentary Secretaries is not increased. It certainly ought to be reduced when we are removing a Ministry and substituting a Department. Is this really the sort of streamlining of government which the Socialist Party put before the electorate at the last two elections? It is an increase of staff of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is an increase of Ministerial appointments for which the taxpayer has to pay.
Therefore, we are asked tonight to approve the dissolution of a Ministry which, we were told 18 months ago, was absolutely essential to carry out a great survey of land. All that it has done in its life is to produce one good Act, the Commons Registration Act—drafted by a Conservative Government—and one very bad Act, in my view the worst piece of legislation ever presented to the House, the Land Commission Act. Having spent 3½ million on his Ministry in doing that, we are not asked to lose it in another Ministry. Eighteen months of wasted effort, and what a way to run a Government!

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: It was kind of the Government


to introduce the Order at the time when right hon. and hon. Members opposite must be feeling particularly depressed with the public announcement of the way in which one of their previous Cabinet Ministers, and a well-known, efficient Cabinet Minister, has thrown away, apparently, what tenuous contact he has recently appeared to have with them. It is only natural that hon. Members opposite should desire to cover up their misery and disappointment by showing an interest in this evening's events.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you can invite the hon. Member to tell us what he is talking about so that you may judge whether it is in order. It is certainly very dull.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I should have thought that the former Minister of Transport, who, I understand, still has contact with right hon. and hon. Members opposite, was reasonably well known, as he is in the Press for some of his pronouncements. Naturally, this is not a matter which hon. Members opposite desire to raise in the House.
I welcome this opportunity to be in at the demise of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I am glad to see that as distinct from certain funeral orations, the Minister responsible is himself attending his own obsequies, which is a rather unusual event. I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that once the decision was taken that planning responsibility should not be passed to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, the whole future function and running of that Ministry was unreal in that respect. Many would agree with the hon. Member in that criticism.
There was, I think, an argument for the establishment of a completely separate planning Ministry as had been established before, but when it was decided not to create that full separate and independent planning Ministry, what was left was inevitably a mixture which was highly confusing for all those concerned with it.
Nevertheless, when we come to the reabsorption of this Ministry back into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which appears to me to be a reasonable operation at this moment

of time, there are two issues on which I have anxiety. I do not share the view of hon. Members opposite that no valuable work has been done by the Ministry during its existence. Quite the contrary. So far from regarding the Land Commission Act as a major tragedy as hon. Members opposite appear to do, I regard it as a most valuable contribution to the legislation and a vital one which can, and will, play a very great part.
Such a measure of the sort was widely demanded in the country, and the very inability of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to decide what was their view about these major questions of land ownership and land use was, of course, one of the reasons why they were rejected so outstandingly by the electorate in two major elections. Indeed, the inability of the right hon. Gentleman who is sitting opposite to make up his mind with his right hon. Friends what their attitude was towards land ownership at one time leaves him in no position whatever to criticise the actions which have been taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)?

Mr. Blenkinsop: However, I have anxieties on two matters. One, indeed, my right hon. Friend referred to, and that is the question of forestry. It was maintained, I think with a great deal of justice, that it was a valuable change to separate the Forestry Commission from the Ministry of Agriculture, and although I fully recognise that important changes have been made in the working of the Forestry Commission, I am still doubtful whether the Commission should go back to the Ministry of Agriculture again, where it was very unhappily housed in the past.
I recognise that a new Minister and a whole new atmosphere will make it a much happier place for the Commission than it was when right hon. Gentlemen on the other side were in power, but I think many of us would like some further reassuring about the degree of independence the Commission is to have, and that attention will be given to the major problems which affect the country very much


in this field, and as to whether or not the Commission may feel that it will be stifled within a Ministry which has many other matters with which to concern itself.
The other issue which is raised is that of the broad question of countryside policy, about which, unhappily, we have few occasions to raise matters here in this House. I think many of us were very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend was able to introduce his White Paper on Leisure in the Countryside, dealing with the important matter of recreation and facilities to be provided in the countryside and the wider issues of how we are to reconcile our desire to protect and to preserve what is most sensitive in the countryside with our equal desire to encourage its full use and enjoyment. These are matters which, I know, are very much to the heart of my right hon. Friend, and, as I say, we welcome the fact that he introduced the White Paper setting out the broad views of the Government on this questions.
We had hoped that his Ministry would have been able to produce the legislation which, as the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned, was envisaged, but although we have had certain general promises and undertakings about that—and we had them year after year, sickeningly from right hon. Gentlemen opposite—we have not, alas, had really adequate assurances that legislation is to be brought before the House. I think it is natural, when the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources is to be absorbed in this larger Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that we should have some added anxieties about the future of this particular piece of legislation, because nobody pretends that this question is one which arouses any kind of strong party political feeling; it is a matter of such general interest as not generally to stimulate Governments—of all complexions—into vigorous action.
I am pleased that it was a Labour Government which introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act which we have on the Statute Book, and I am glad that it has fallen to another Labour Government to make changes and reforms to introduce the new provisions which now are so urgently necessary.
However, there are a large number of young people particularly who are concerned about these matters, and local

authorities and others are hampered at present in not being able to get ahead with some of the work that they would like to do because of the lack of amending legislation. Therefore, it is natural that some of us should be unhappy about the dissolution of this Ministry without adequate assurances about the future of the legislation to which I have referred.
I should have been happier if my right hon. Friend had taken on more clearly the responsibilities of a Minister concerned with these wider countryside and recreation problems in a similar way to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has special responsibility for the Arts within the Ministry of Education. It would seem logical and right that there should be a Minister with special responsibility for this new, developing and very important activity within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Let us remember, too, that it is important not only to young people but to older people as well.
I know that my right hon. Friend has a deep and sincere interest in this matter, and I should be glad if he could give some of us who have spent a good deal of time on these questions the assurance for which I ask, that the passing of his Ministry will not affect the promises which have been made about the production of legislation to deal with recreation in the countryside.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) did not create a very clear impression whether he was for or against the Order. However, he said one very pertinent thing. He thought that it was a little brutal of those who arrange the Government's business to delegate to his right hon. Friend the Minister the duty of taking the Order through the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not suggest any brutality. I said that it was kindly of the Government to introduce this issue for the amusement of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, I am particularly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what I said. To suggest that his right hon. Friend is put up for the sole purpose of giving


amusement to my right hon. and hon. Friends is the kind of criticism which I myself would hesitate to make of the Minister.
I think that it is somewhat brutal that the right hon. Gentleman should now propose the Motion that his Ministry should be wound up, when one remembers how, two years ago, he was so full of high hopes of the great and splendid things that he would do, when all the problems of the land would be resolved under this wise and beneficient Ministry which was being set up. I suppose that the only explanation is that someone in the Government machine thought that, for once, the right hon. Gentleman should do a job that was worth doing.
I am bound to say that I welcome the Order. It is the best thing that the right hon. Gentleman has done during his Ministerial career. I thought that he made one curious and paradoxical statement when he said that hon. Gentlemen would not be surprised by this Order, because there had been an election pledge by the Government to bring it before the House. That is really the most astonishing observation. Prima facie, the fact that the Government are pledged to do it would seem to raise the strongest doubts about whether it would be done. One has only to look at all the other pledges by the Government, on taxation, rates, mortgages, houses, the abolition of the British nuclear deterrent, full employment, economic growth, and stability in prices. All those pledges were made, but, as the House knows, no attempt has been made to carry them out, and it has this extraordinary paradox.
This one little pledge obviously troubled the Prime Minister's conscience, and he said, "We will carry out this pledge. We will abolish the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources". I suppose it was like George IV's scruple about his coronation oath. It was his only scruple on the subject of Catholic emancipation, and he therefore valued it dearly. I suppose that that is the explanation.
It certainly was the most popular of almost all the proposals in the Government's election manifesto. It is true that it was merely to undo something that they had done, to destroy something which they had created, but let the right hon.

Gentleman take encouragement from this. At the next election much the best thing to put in his manifesto is the pledge that he will undo some of the other things that he has done.

Mr. Graham Page: The Land Commission.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend reminds me, the Land Commission for one.
There is a certain irony about this, that this one pledge, the only one of the lot which the Government are trying to carry out, is to undo one thing which they themselves have done. I remember the high hopes with which this Department was set up. As my hon. Friend said, the fatal mistake which doomed it from the beginning—and I say with due modesty, and the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out, that I took this point with the Prime Minister from the beginning—was that a Ministry supposed to be the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources could not deal with the problems of land use if it did not have planning power.
It is an abuse of language to say that this was a Department to deal with land use, when the actual decisions which determine land use were made by somebody else, and not only taken by somebody else, but taken by the present Lord President of the Council, then the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who said to me from that Dispatch Box that it was offensive to suggest that he would even consult the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Land and Natural Resources about planning decisions. That is an answer with which I rather sympathise. This has been the fatal weakness of this Ministry.
But the muddle continues. The right hon. Gentleman this evening treated us to an extraordinary disquisition on the distinction between strategical and technical planning. If I understood him aright, assuming that this distinction can be made—and no definition has been given to us as where the line of demarcation is to be drawn—we are apparently to have the fantastic situation that tactical planning decisions are to be made by the superior Minister, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and that his subordinate, the Minister of State for Land, is to make the strategic decisions. What a fantastic arrangement


—an army in which the brigadier lays down strategy, and the general operates tactical control.
This really is the most fantastic army. I use this metaphor because the Prime Minister used a military metaphor once today, and it is obviously in the spirit of this present Administration. This is what the right hon. Gentleman told us. This is the concept—the superior officer, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, obediently trotting away to apply the tactical applications of the strategy which his own Minister of State is good enough to hand down to him. This shows that this question of any Minister being concerned with land but divorced from ordinary planning decisions has not yet been resolved.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us a disquisition on what his Department had done. I do not think that he understood the illogicality of his argument. It was really an argument for continuing the Ministry. Although his Ministry had done all these admirable things about water, and carried out innumerable surveys about forestry, and so on, he was moving an Order to dissolve it. It was another example of the muddle and confusion into which the Government have got themselves on this matter.
What is the right hon. Gentleman doing now, and what will he do? The other day I had a letter from him, written on the most extraordinary writing paper I have ever seen coming from a Government Department. It was headed "Ministry of Housing and Local Government: Ministry of Land and Natural Resources." Apparently it lives in Whitehall. The letter was from the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. What is the right hon. Gentleman now doing in another Ministry, still calling himself a Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) says "a cuckoo in the nest", but I would not go as far as that. I would think that it was more a case of an anomaly in pursuit of a paradox.
We should hear what the bright idea of the Prime Minister's in setting up this Department has cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) gave the estimated figure for one year, but I should like to know what this bright idea of the Prime Minis-

ter's in setting up this Ministry nearly two and a half years ago has cost, in all, to the taxpayer.
What will be the effect on Government staffs? The right hon. Gentleman said not a word about staff reductions arising from the dissolution of this Department. Will there be any—or will it be the same story as we have always had under this Government, that all these changes mean more and not less staff? Are we, by eliminating the Department, going to achieve any reduction in staff? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
What about Parliamentary Questions? The right hon. Gentleman was telling us about the functions that he thinks he will still perform in the Ministry of Housing. He answers a good many Questions, as does the Minister of Housing; indeed, the Minister of Housing was down to answer 70 Questions today but answered only half. Are Questions concerning land, leasehold and similar matters to be lumped in with Questions to the Ministry of Housing, with a consequent decreasing chance of being answered?
I come to the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the Order, dealing with the creation of the 21st Minister of State. I am extremely doubtful about the wisdom of this, and of the proliferation of Ministers of State. They impede the work and diminish the status of the Parliamentary Secretary. Parliamentary Secretaries now have very little to do but to follow the words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
The privilege and pleasure That they treasure beyond measure Is to run their little errands for the Minister of State.
I am not sure that that is a good thing for the honourable office of Parliamentary Secretary.
I must probe further the question of salaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked the pertinent question whether or not the Minister of State—the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else—will be paid at the same rate as the right hon. Gentleman himself is paid as a head of a Department of State. If so, I protest. It is wholly wrong. It has been a long tradition that Ministers at the head of Departments have, in view of their responsibilities, the highest level of salaries—and to pay a Minister


of State a full Minister's salary, merely because he has been a separate Minister, would be a considerable abuse. It would also have the effect of depriving us of even a marginal financial economy from this change. Are we to be told what is to happen about this before the debate ends?
I welcome the Order, but I have some regrets about it. There have been times when it seemed almost unchivalrous to hit the right hon. Gentleman; he was so helpless. He was the best target on the Treasury Bench and I had similar feelings to those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) on another occasion, about another Minister, when he asked, "Have they shot our fox?".
I come to bury the right hon. Gentleman, not to praise him. The fiasco of the creation of this Department has now become clearer than ever. What those of us two years ago said was a mistake and a blunder has now been admitted by the Government to have been a mistake and a blunder. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister, with his fondness for military metaphor, has applied in this Order the sound military principle: never reinforce failure.

9.41 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Normally I would think it my duty to encourage and assist in the burial of such a monstrous affair as the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. However, the circumstances of these death rites are hardly normal. It is proposed to wind up this Ministry before the Land Commission is properly under way, and the sheer cowardice of this appals me. The Order states that it
… shall come into operation on 16th February 1967".
As I understand it, the first appointed day for the Land Commission is 6th April. What a happy coincidence for the Minister. It seems that here is the dishonest bookie absconding before his punters can find him. It is a moonlight flit; a Doctor Savundra. When the victims of the Land Commission wish to complain about any high-handed treatment that may have been meted out to them, to whom will they go for redress? The Order states:

… certain functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources … be transferred to the Secretary of State … the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and … the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
What a splendid game of Ministerial "pass the parcel" will be played when any hon. Member wishes to complain on behalf of his or her constituents about the treatment meted out by the Land Commission.
The sad tragedy is that the people of this country have some strange notion that when something or other is taken into the control of the State they can ask their M.P.s to seek redress if they have been treated badly. One constituent wrote to me only this morning having the incredibly naïve temerity to suggest that he was a shareholder in nationalised gas. It is totally absurd for my constituents to imagine that if people are treated badly by the Land Commission they will be able to obtain redress by going to their M.P.s. This is a serious point which should be fully explained before the dissolution of this Ministry takes place.
We have been told that the number of people who will be adversely affected by the operation of the Land Commission will be very small and that in only about 15 per cent. of cases will people have to pay the betterment levy. This is an optimistic figure, as my hon. Friends and I have pointed out. It seems highly likely that far more than 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of householders who have had their houses taken from them by the Land Commission will have cause for grievance and will wish to express their grievances to somebody.
What about the man whose house is taken over while he is abroad? Since the Land Commission has, with remarkable rapidity, become the golden calf of the Labour Party, I assume that the Minister who will be approached in such a case will be the Minister of Agriculture. What about the businessman whose business address is seized? He may feel that the address at which he earns his bread and butter has been taken from him. Must he apply to the Ministry of Food for redress? What about the builder who feels aggrieved because he did not get a concessionary crownhold through the Land Commission? Some fishy suggestions will be made about that, and I suppose that


he must apply to the Ministry of Fisheries for redress. This is, of course, not a humorous matter. It is an extremely serious one because a great number of people will shortly wish to put forward objections about the treatment they are receiving.

Mr. Willey: I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate my difficulty. This Order does not deal with the Land Commission. We dealt with that in the Bill itself. I should be in difficulty if I endeavoured to reply to the points the hon. Lady is raising.

Mrs. Knight: This is precisely the point. It is almost impossible to nail any responsibility on to anyone. The Minister will recognise that we associate him, rather naturally, with the Land Commission. So he cannot blame us if in waving him goodbye with a certain unease we feel that now is the time to make our protestations. No other occasion will arise. We have to point out to the Labour Government that we are in this House to transmit the feelings of unease of our constituents to some head of responsibility. When the head of responsibility is rapidly vanishing out at the door and away from the Front Bench, we are given great cause for concern.
This is something concerning this dissolution Order about which many people feel grave concern. I can sympathise with the Minister. Nevertheless I feel sure he in turn will sympathise with us because we are trying to do the job for which we were sent here. For these reasons I am concerned about the dissolution, indeed for no other reason. The right hon. Gentleman will not take it harshly when I say that I shall not be unduly concerned at the actual dissolution of the Ministry, but for the reasons I have advanced I have cause for grave concern as I think others in this land will have.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I address myself to this Order as one representing a constituency which perhaps has watched with as great interest as any part of the United Kingdom the creation and activities of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. A large part of my constituency lies within the Lake District National Park, the Forestry Commission is one of the

largest landowners in the constituency and the Morecambe and Lonsdale constituency is not unconcerned with water resources.
Therefore I listened with expectation, first for an explanation why this decision to suppress the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources is considered appropriate at this present time and, secondly, perhaps with even more interest, for information regarding the future discharge of the responsibilities which until now have been allocated to the right hon. Gentleman. These are indeed remarkable proceedings. I do not know whether it is possible to find a precedent for them.
It was only on 3rd November, 1964, in the debate on the Address, that the Prime Minister said:
Disarmament, Technology, the new Ministry of Natural Resources—I would have thought that the House would consider that these were essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 65.]
If the Prime Minister has changed his mind on one of that trio perhaps there is hope even now, which would give us greater pleasure, to see him go in relation to those other two Departments. After two years, a Ministry which was considered essential by the Prime Minister in November, 1964 is being wound up.
We are therefore entitled to ask, in considering the Ministry's present position and its future, whether the circumstances have changed since November, 1964. If they have not changed—nothing the Minister has said has convinced me that they have—it would appear that the creation of the Ministry was an error of judgment. Yet we all know that the Prime Minister is never guilty of an error of judgment.
On this occasion there was some support for the view the Prime Minister took, because there was general agreement that a new body was required to discharge at any rate some of the functions which the Minister has been discharging. In our election manifesto of October, 1964, we proposed the establishment of a countryside commission. I am delighted that in the White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman that such a body should be set up. It was specifically stated in that White Paper, only 12 months ago, that the Countryside Commission should operate under the general guidance


and control of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources.
What went wrong with the creation of the Ministry? I, too, suggest that the Ministry was yet another ill-fated project of that instant government to which we were treated in the first 100 days of the Prime Minister's period of office. Its duties and powers were insufficiently delineated and the fact that it was created in such a sketchy fashion was due, not to an error of judgment, but just to an incompetence in execution in setting up the Ministry by the Prime Minister. From that point of view I sympathise with the Minister in the conditions under which he has been forced to operate during the past two years. I am sure that on many occasions he has found them frustrating.
Now it is sought to correct the failure to create a workable division of responsibility between these Ministries by an Order abolishing the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and returning its powers to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I only wish that it were as easy to set right the other consequences of the ill-considered decisions taken in the first 100 days as it is by passing the Order so that we could avoid the resulting 1,000 days of stagnation which have arisen on the general economic scene. What we are doing tonight is just an indication of the Government's quality of thinking at that period.
The reason why the Ministry is being wound up is that the powers given to it were insufficient. The nettle of planning control was not grasped. In my experience, even in the National Parks, planning control remained with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and, even when such a matter as the extraction of water from lakes in a National Park was under consideration and decision, the decision was taken, not by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, but by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Reference is made in the White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" to "Enterprise Neptune". But when it came to dealing, as I have had to deal on behalf of my constituents, with the question of planning permission and whether it should be granted in coastal areas of high

amenity, the decision was not in the hands of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. It was in the hands of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This Ministry was hobbled—or perhaps I should say nobbled—before it even started to operate.
Now it is suggested by the Order that all these specialised functions, some of which were detached from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government two years ago, should be returned to that Ministry. I can understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm that this be taken, but I make the comment that the transfer could not come at a less opportune time and what advantages might be gained from it are largely offset by the fact that a Minister is being retained—I make no personal reference to the right hon. Gentleman here—there is to be no reduction in the number of Ministers or, so far as I understand, in the number of staff. We shall see the inflation of an already over-size and overburdened Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Before long, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will be considering and implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. From the discussions I have had and the evidence already submitted to the Royal Commission, it is clear to me that this will put a heavy additional burden on the Ministry and it is bound to be its prime concern in the years immediately ahead. The Minister and his Department will have their hands full of it.
For the reasons which the Minister of Land and Natural Resources himself gave, I consider that certain duties would be better retained by a separate body. Responsibility for the National Parks is an obvious example. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject. I know that he has visited the Lake District National Park on a number of occasions. The question of water resources is another example. This is of special interest to me and my constituents, and I ask for the indulgence of the House if I use the developments in the North-West as an illustration of some of my apprehensions about the winding up of this Ministry and of the type of action which I hope it will still be possible to take through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when


this Minister and his staff are absorbed into what I fear is an all too monolithic and inflexible organisation.
One of the Minister's last actions was to authorise a full feasibility survey for a Morecambe Bay barrage. This does not mean—I say this only for the record —that,he has authorised the construction of the barrage. Some people have assumed that it is almost under way. He has authorised only a study of what is involved. Here is a list of some of the items which his Ministry would have been considering as a result of that survey had it remained a separate entity. First, it would consider whether this was the economic way to provide 500 million gallons a day of water, which would go almost half way to meet the additional needs of the whole of the north of England up to 1990. Second, there would be the question of 12,000 acres of reclaimed land brought into agricultural use. Third, the problem of 15,000 acres of agricultural land which would have to be drained by pumping but which at present is drained by normal natural processes. Fourth, the elimination of the fishing industry employing a considerable number of people. Fifth, the considerable problem of assessing the effect on amenity and the general effect on agriculture in the vicinity. Sixth, the creation of the largest stretch of inland water in the United Kingdom.
Parallel with these considerations—this is relevant to our discussion now—there are proposals by the Lancashire County Council for an additional 100,000 population to move into the Lancaster-Morecambe area, a process which would be going forward at the same time. Last, for good measure, the Central Electricity Generating Board has announced that it proposes to construct a nuclear power station on the fringes of the bay.
These matters have particular relevance to the functions which would have been discharged, or ought to be discharged, by a Minister of Land and Natural Resources. In his opening speech the Minister used one or two phrases which are particularly relevant. He said that when the Ministry was set up there was a case for a separate and articulate voice in Government, a "core" Ministry, and he referred to the divorcing of policy making from day-to-day responsibility. I believe that it is extremely important

that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should establish a departmental function capable of taking a broad view of developments in circumstances such as I have mentioned, because they are not unique and may well be repeated in other parts of the country.
Strange to say—and I hope that the Minister will at least find these words welcome—I have some apprehension lest the guiding hand of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources should be missed as a result of the Order, because I believe that in that type of development we could have an exercise in democratic planning. I am desperately anxious that that opportunity should not be lost and I raise the matter in some detail now, first, because I believe that its scale is such that it warrants being discussed in the House of Commons, and, secondly, because I believe that the opportunity may be lost through the merging of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources with local government.
To begin with, I believe that some machinery should be set up in the Ministry to guide the kind of investigation now taking place. Three planning authorities would be involved—the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness, Westmorland County Council and Lancashire County Council. Four would be involved if one considers, as some people do, the Lake District Planning Board as a separate planning authority. I believe that this matter is relevant to the present discussion because in the debate in March, 1965, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, referring to the former situation, said:
What we have done is to leave the local planning authorities to bear a heavy burden largely unco-ordinated. This is one of the reasons why we have got into chaos with overspill, communications and in many other ways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 379.]
If the Minister feels that his Department has improved co-ordination up to now, I hope that he will say that steps are being taken to see that no chaos develops in the North West region as a result of the transfer, I hope that, particularly when he consults the North West Economic Planning Council on the terms of reference for the feasibility survey, he will bear in mind the desirability of asking the planning authorities involved at


an early stage what type of information it would be most useful for them to have as a result of the survey, so that he can ascertain what information they will particularly wish to have made available to them at the earliest possible date. I hope that he might later consider having a project consultative committee which could keep in touch with all the interests affected, so that people did not think that they were having a solution or decision imposed on them but were taking part in the formulation of decisions.
I believe that the Minister is correct in saying that there is a division of function between strategic and day-to-day planning. I wish that he could have told us that there was to be a reduction in the overall number of Ministers and a reduction in the total government departmental staff. In that case, I would have warmly approved the Order without reservation.
But we can hardly mourn a Ministry cut off in its prime, because I feel that it has been enfeebled from the start by possessing insufficient powers and that, taking it in the round, we must regard it as an initiative that has failed. As the Minister himself said, the underlying problems remain despite the fact that this attempt to solve them has evidently not met the situation.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) has made a powerful speech with special reference to his own constituency and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him along the line which he was pursuing.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I was surprised that the Prime Minister should send the Minister here to cut his own throat and salary in public. It must have been rather like acting as Sweeney Todd at second hand. I am surprised, too, that one of the right hon. Gentleman's mourners today is not the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), who was convinced that the Minister's great achievement with the Land Commission was to put up the price of land. I thought that he might have joined in singing the swansong of this remarkable Ministry.
I should like to put forward a suggestion which, even at this stage, the Minister might consider. It is that his proper place is in the Department of Economic Affairs. A great many of the decisions to be taken by the Minister, even in his new guise as a Minister of State, are concerned with economic planning. When in my constituency we put forward plans, we are told that there must be a delay until the regional development plan has been brought out by the Regional Economic Development Council. If there is to be this tie-up between the Department of Economic Affairs and planning in the field, the proper place for the right hon. Gentleman is in the Department and not in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
During his tenure of office, we told the right hon. Gentleman that one thing which was putting up the price of land was planning procedures. I see nothing in these proposals which will improve that situation. I do not think that land will become more readily or more speedily available. In spite of the Land Commission, I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make any substantial difference to the price of land. Unless something is done to help towards that aim, there will have been even more waste of money and land prices will continue to rise.
Although I welcome the demise of the Ministry, I see no broad horizon of cheap land stretching ahead and I see no hope for owner-occupiers stretching ahead. Even though the Minister has cut his own throat, it will be a pity if some good does not come of it.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, because I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) the feeling that it is slightly unfair to go on shooting at sitting ducks and partly because in listening to the right hon. Gentleman I have realised his embarrassment in trying to justify his existence in the first place.
Nevertheless, listening to him further and looking back on all the hight brave phrases, meaningless though they were, I thought that we ought to realise what


an absolute farce the creation of this Ministry was. I do not know how many of my hon. and right hon. Friends remember that we were told not only of this great need to separate strategic from tactical planning—although the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is no difference, or that he has not yet evolved one—but of the need for the evolution of planning techniques, a wholly meaningless phrase which remains as meaningless today as when first pronounced as one of the main reasons for setting up this Ministry.
We were told that there was to be a survey of existing land use. Has anything happened about that? My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has reminded us of the great promise that land was to become much more easily and readily available at lower prices. That, of course, is essentially a function of ordinary land use planning as practised in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and later by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government since the 1947 legislation.
The whole of this Ministry was an absolute farce from the moment that it was established without the planning powers essential to make any sense of its functions. From the very day when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), after Question Time, moved that in view of the unsatisfactory Answers given to the last 26 Questions the matter should be raised on the Adjournment, the right hon. Gentleman has been giving unsatisfactory Answers, not through any fault of his own, but because his Ministry was such that it simply did not make sense, and no one could have made sense of it.
Now, at the end of the day, we are told that, because someone thinks that there ought to be some difference between the strategic planning and tactical planning, this justified a special Minister with special responsibilities, and the full salary of a Cabinet Minister, responsible for something which he hoped one day to evolve. When we look at the other matters for which we were told the right hon. Gentleman was to be responsible, water, the Land Commission, leasehold reform and so on, they were all matters which were always the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. If leasehold means

anything, it means that it is the function of housing, just as the Land Commission deals with a function of planning.
Now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has had returned to it all the functions that it previously had sloughed off to no less than three Ministers in the Welsh Office—two Ministers, drawing full Cabinet salaries and two Parliamentary Secretaries in the Commons and one in the House of Lords, for a job that used to be done by half that number, all drawing a good deal less. Indeed less than half—one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary for the Commons.
It is not for me to say whether the jobs were done well, but I would challenge anyone to say that they arc being done any better by the inflated staff for which the taxpayer has to pay. Looking back on this, it is not something about which we should rejoice, because it is an absolute scandal in the proliferation of highly paid jobs for Members of the party opposite, although I would be the last to grudge the particular Minister his emolument, because we happen to like him, but this is not the point of the exercise.
What are the so-called achievements of this Ministry? The Land Commission Act? I do not suppose that at the very most, more than half a dozen hon. Members—certainly not including the right hon. Gentleman—can begin to understand it. It is a Bill which the Minister says glibly will affect only a small percentage of householders, who will not have to pay the levy.
In every case one of the most complicated series of valuations and assessments that has ever appeared on the Statute Book will have to be made to say whether the levy should be paid. People will always be saddled with high professional fees, because it is a very difficult job and the community will be saddled with more and more people, diverting into the wholly unconstructive exercise of arguing with the district valuer, or whoever represents the Land Commission.
The leasehold White Paper must be the biggest travesty of justice ever to pass through the House. It deals with the compulsory acquisition of legitimately acquired property, and its transfer, not to the Government in the public interest, but to other individuals, simply because


there are more of them, and the Government believe that they are more likely to vote for them. We are engaged in the closing down of a Ministry which ought never to have been created. I only wish that we were engaged in the discussion of a Bill of Impeachment which would be very much more suitable.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I entirely agree with the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). Many times in the last two years I have regretted the ending of the procedures of impeachment. I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend that it is a greaty pity that we now lack this weapon.
I have stayed here for a long time with the deliberate intention of supporting the Government—a very galling thing to have to do, but I find myself doing it wholeheartedly. Having said that, it seems a little churlish to turn to this bit of paper which we have before us. I regret very much that over the years I have not had the foresight to collect from each of these horrid little bits of paper some of the glowing and gleaming phrases of muck which proliferate in such places.
I invite attention to paragraph 1(3) of the Order which provides:
In this Order—"'instrument', without prejudice to the generality of that expression, includes in particular an Order in Council, judgment, scheme, decree, order, rule, regulation, byelaw, award, covenant, agreement, certificate and any other document".
What terrible stuff this is! Cannot we be content with "instrument"? Cannot we refer in this horrid Order to
instrument', without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing"?
That should suffice even for the Minister. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a taste for bad language, for a revolting massacre of the English language. His appetite has been whetted by the exercise of the Land Commission Bill and its revolting Schedules about which you and I, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so with the greatest respect, were involved in a slight disagreement earlier.
I came to praise tonight, not the Minister, but the Government's decision to do away with him. I am bound to say that my enthusiasm is considerably weakened

by constant reflection on the message of paragraph 3(2) of the Order which provides in its last words:
… for the word 'twenty' there shall be substituted the word 'twenty-one'"—
another Minister of State.
I do not go the whole way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who I am sorry is not here. He suggested that the office of Parliamentary Secretary was honourable. My own experience led me to believe that what it involved was this. When it was highly inconvenient, embarrassing and onerous to be a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary was a Minister fully-fledged, unadulterated and, without any qualification. But when there was any advantage, glory, distinction or honour in being a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary was an office boy, unless, by great good fortune—and I do not mean this in a spiteful sense—his Minister happened to be ill. I do not agree that there was any honour or glory in being a Parliamentary Secretary. I very much doubt, though, whether much would be gained by converting all Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers of State. I think that I have said enough about that.
I am glad that one of the main pallbearers has returned to the Chamber. One did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman, in his "dickey" political condition, would be here alone to celebrate his own obsequies. It would have been unseemly even by the low standards of this Administration had he been here in solitude and isolation. We have had the Solicitor-General with us. We are pleased to see him here because he always manages to convert an easy Parliamentary occasion into one of immense difficulty. For this he has a talent. I was encouraged earlier to see that he had the Attorney-General on the other side of him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stepped into this little puddle just to ensure that neither of his colleagues got too far off the rails, although what mistakes they could make at this eleventh hour in the right hon. Gentleman's existence I was not able to guess. It would be very unfair to address to the Chair the question, "What was this Ministry expected to do; what was it created to do?" It would be indecent to ask the Chair what this Ministry did do.
The Land Commission Bill is the shabby and disgraceful memorial of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of Office at the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. What a fearful and horrid monument. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, on a number of occasions, had promised to give his active and sympathetic attention to various matters. What fearful treatment. My hon. Friend was good enough to remind us that the printing bill under this organisation had soared. I do not doubt that you, Sir, like myself, spent hours of anguish wondering about those dreadful Schedules—not what they meant, because their meaning was inaccessible to either of us, but what they were meant to mean. No wonder the printing bill must have soared, in view of the number of rough copies, less rough copies, eventually reaching to drafts, which they must have gone through. It must have been legion. The result was as bad, one supposes, as anything that went before it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked what will happen in future to Parliamentary Questions on this subject. Will they just be merged with the answers given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? There can be few of us, who take an interest in this subject, who do not remember with nostalgia and regret the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman was answering Questions in the House of Commons after the 1964 election. Really, one was left at the end of the day feeling that the questioners

knew more when the operation started than the right hon. Gentleman did at any time during the process. It was a most inconceivable display and one felt sorry for the right hon. Gentleman who was exposed to this humiliation.
Tonight the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Land and Natural Resources, takes wing to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and he leaves us in his present capacity unwept, unhonoured, and unsung. This was a fearful Department. It was just another of the Prime Minister's gimmicks, designed to suggest that a Government, formed by the Socialist Party, really had plans and vivid intentions and designs, that it had a sense of purpose which would be so strong as to drive it forward in conquest of some of this country's more serious problems. Now we see the muck and mockery that is left behind it. The Land Commission Act—let that be its monument, amen; and let the Minister be remembered for some of the really dreadful Schedules which violated the English language, at the same time as they distorted common sense and frustrated liberty itself.
What I said at an early stage of the Land Commission Bill was justified, namely, how clever the Government were to choose the right hon. Gentleman, so innocent looking, and so inoffensive and so reasonable, as the vessel to draw that horrid Bill through Parliament. I could not have done otherwise tonight than to stay to take my humble part in the obsequies of the right hon. Gentleman's career as Minister of Land and Natural Resources.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will forgive me if I do not follow him exactly. I could not have bettered his remarks about the criticism of the ill-fated Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. My hon. Friend put it so concisely that it would be as well if I did not elaborate on what he said.
I would, however, like to mention the interesting remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lons-date (Mr. Hall-Davis), who spoke earlier about the size of the large and growing Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. My hon. Friend told us how the figures had been inflated. Perhaps he is not aware that only a month or two ago I received an Answer to a Written Question showing the terrific increase in the number of non-industrial civil servants since the Government came to office. Suffice it to say that the increase has been at an accelerating rate for the past couple of years. Between 1st January and 1st October last year, a period of nine months, no fewer than 17,000 new civil servants were on the books as established. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil would not have been alone tonight and that the House would have given a really good send-off to the Minister and his Ministry, with packed benches on both sides, if he knew that with the right hon. Gentleman's departure his staff would be redeployed in productive work of a useful nature.
It is almost exactly two years ago to the day since the House had laid before it the Statutory Instrument bringing into effect the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. During those two years, as we have heard tonight, the activities of the Ministry have been multifarious. In some cases they have not been of any great importance. This ill-fated two years' career will always be marked—or should I say marred—by one Measure with which I and most of my hon. Friends associate the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, namely, the Land Commission Act, a copy of which has become available from the Vote Office today. In my estimation, that blot will always blacken the name of the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry.
As hon. Friends of mine have said, there is nothing wrong with the Minister himself as a man. I thought for a moment that he was getting up to intervene. He is a pleasant and courteous little man. What I condemn him for, however, is not so much for bringing to the Statute Book an Act which nobody can understand, and I could never condemn him for his pleasant manner and readiness with which he explained matters to back benchers during the prolonged Committee stage proceedings—

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member was on the Standing Committee. The Bill went through Standing Committee in a remarkably short time without a Closure or suggestion of a Closure. How can he say that he does not understand the Bill?

Mr. Farr: I was not aware that I had said that I did not understand it, although I would have said so in due course. In saying that, I was merely echoing the words of many of the Minister's hon. Friends during the debates on the Land Commission Bill on the Floor of the House. I was going to say that what I do condemn the Minister for is trying to pilot through a complicated Measure of this nature which he never properly understood himself. He never understood it. I heard one of my hon. Friends say a little while ago that there were probably fewer than half a dozen Members who understood the Land Commission Act. I would say that there is not a single Member in this House, on either side, who fully understands the Land Commission Act, and I am quite certain that the Minister never fully understood it himself.
I suppose that in the years to come his children—or perhaps I ought to say, his grandchildren—will ask him what he did in the House, and no doubt, as he sits back on the Front Bench now, with his feet up, he is thinking that he will be able to reply, "I piloted through the Land Commission Bill. I was the man who brought the Land Commission Act into being." I will make a forecast that in a very short time, in, perhaps, a matter of two or three years only, he will be ceasing to tell his children or grandchildren that: he will be ashamed of the results, of the disorganisation and the chaos, in the country, and will certainly not brag of his Act to his descendants in any way.
Why should I speak like that of any Act of Parliament? After all, we all in this House try to make the best of any job, however bad it may seem to be. I really think that the Land Commission Act, which has been such an ill omen, so to speak, for the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, is an exceptional piece of legislation—

Mr. Speaker: This is not the Third Reading of the Land Commission Bill.

Mr. Farr: No. I quite appreciate that. I was merely trying to put one or two reasons why I do not regret for one moment the passing of the Minister or the Ministry, and the chief reason for not regretting that is in one or two points I thought to make about the Act for which the Minister is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: A passing reference to it is all right. I was just calling the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is not the Third Reading of the Land Commission Bill.

Mr. Farr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying how much it has been agreed on both sides of the House and in the country that the Land Commission Act is not understood by those who should understand this type of Measure. It has not been the only Measure which the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry has produced, but the Land Commission Act is, I think, the only Measure which has unanimously been condemned as unintelligible and unworkable by those professional bodies which have got to understand it and have got to make it work.
I quite appreciate that I cannot go into too great detail of the Act, and so I shall not trouble the House with some of its major sins, but I should like to call attention to what is perhaps the most disgraceful part of the Act, one which we have not seen come into force, and which will not come into force till the second appointed day arrives, and that is the accelerated and un-British method of compulsory purchase without appeal, and also the acquisition by the Land Commission of powers which have been unexceeded in this country even in time of war.
I should be out of order if I were to refer to the privileged position of nationalised concerns not paying any development levy, or to the privileged position

of local authorities, and I would also not like to deal in too much detail with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have ignored consistently the advice which has been given them in another place by their right hon. Friend Lord Silkin, that the first appointed day should be postponed. They have ignored that advice persistently, and they are not going to pay for ignoring this advice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with respect, must come back to the Orded itself.

Mr. Farr: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
I conclude by saying that it is the small plot owner who will suffer as a result of the obstinate and obdurate attitude of his Ministry.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that my remarks are naturally coloured by the Land Commission Act, because I served on the Committee which considered the Bill. However, that is not the only reason why I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry disappear. I could not join with anyone in regretting the right hon. Gentleman's departure from this place, and his Ministry's departure from Whitehall at the earliest possible date.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: While attending the last rites of this Ministry, it is important that we should learn a lesson which is available to us, by thinking back to the earlier days of the Ministry, when it had considerable popular appeal.
It was said that one of the jobs that it would perform was to provide cheaper land for housing for owner-occupiers. There is no doubt that a tremendous amount of political propaganda was made out of that so-called function of the Ministry, and a prominent performer in spreading that propaganda was the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. Unfortunately, the Minister of Housing and Local Government joined in strongly in those early days, because he did not understand the limitations of the proposals, and that Minister was misled, just as were the small builders and, eventually, the young couples who


hoped to benefit from the so-called proposals of this Ministry.
It is very important that we should see to it that a similar misunderstanding is avoided, that the new Minister of Housing, who will be taking over these responsibilities, is under no misapprehension as to the sort of bag of tricks he is taking over, and what benefits he can hope to achieve from the earlier work of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
That is necessary, because, as late as 14th July of last year, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources was asserting in great detail that builders would get land at less than the market price and that owner-occupiers would get houses more cheaply as a result of his policies. These transactions were to be carried out by way of sales of concessionary crownhold land, the Minister asserted. But members of the Opposition knew at that time and had known for a long time that these claims were false, because the Minister had refused consistently to introduce regulations which were necessary to show how the privileged builders would be chosen and how the privileged owners of these cheaper houses would be selected. We knew that there could not be any truth in these claims.
Eventually, the true position was made clear by a Government spokesman speaking in another place. As late as 17th January of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet said:
What is not intended is that the Commission should so dispose of concessionary crown-hold: it will dispose only of crownhold in general—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 17th January, 1967 ; Vol. 279, c. 82.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I cannot see what this has to do with the transfer of functions.

Mr. Eyre: It is great practical importance. What the Government spokesman in another place did was to make quite clear what kind of result the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources could bring about. Then, unfortunately, that was contradicted by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, because, on 25th January, he virtually denied in this House what had been said by the Gov-

ernment spokesman in another place and repeated earlier White Paper promises.

Mr. Blenkinson: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this not merely an attempt to have another debate on the Land Commission Act?

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order. We are asked in this Order to approve the appointment of a Minister of State. We have been told the sort of jobs he is to undertake, one of which is the running of the Land Commission. Surely this is very much in order? Under paragraph 3(2) we are to appoint a further Minister of State. It is for us to discuss what he is going to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not in order to discuss the details of the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Eyre: What I am trying to do in quick outline is to record the fact that on 25th January, despite what had been said in another place, the Minister here repeated earlier promises set out in a White Paper which had been virtually discredited as a result of what the Government spokesman had said in another place. The practical importance of this, and the relevance of it to this Order, is that we want to be sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is to assume responsibility for these functions, is not misled, as an earlier Minister of Housing and Local Government was, into thinking that these benefits will be available to small builders, or to young couples who are saving up to become purchasers and hope to benefit. It is important that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government should not repeat the earlier false propaganda statement of his predecessor, and that he should understand the true factual position as set out by the spokesman in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue that.

Mr. Eyre: I am very glad that this Order is being made tonight, and I hope that the Minister, as his last act, will set the record straight by acknowledging that the Government spokesman in another place is correct in what he says about this, and will therefore be able


to move over to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and give a clear account of the functions which can be performed through the agency of the Land Commission so that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will not be misled in any way about the possibilities of the policy that he can carry out.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I think that the funeral rites of this Ministry have been very full and solemn. There have, of course, been occasions when some rather hard things have been said, not about the Minister himself, but about his Ministry. At one point my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred to it as a torso-less apparition, and I think that the Minister, having listened, as has he has done with his customary politeness, to the things which have been said, which have been hard, and possibly verging on the impolite, may perhaps in his own mind regret that this Ministry was ever set up, and he may, indeed, even be glad that it is now to be dissolved.
To my mind, the sole apparent positive contribution which his Ministry has made has been the rather doubtful one of the Land Commission Act. It might perhaps have been poetic justice had the Minister himself been appointed its first chairman, although I doubt very much whether he would have liked to have taken on that honour. As it is, many of his functions are to be dispersed to other Ministries, and he is about to be translated to a higher place in the form of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I think one is entitled to ask what savings are going to come about through this translation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I gather is to reply to the debate, will be able to tell us in positive terms what savings are to be achieved. It is apparent from the Order that there will be no saving in terms of Ministers. We know that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government already boasts a Minister of Cabinet rank and no fewer than three Parliamentary Secretaries.
Now that same Ministry is to receive a Minister of State. One might ask

what happens to his Parliamentary Secretary. Is he on the transfer list? Oh, dear no! He has the same fee, and will join the new team with his captain. This glittering team of two Ministers and four Parliamentary Secretaries is to be responsible for the existing work of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, plus a few tattered remnants of what is left of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I hope that with this glittering team there will be, in order to help to pay their salaries, a considerable diminution of ancillary staff at all lower levels. If there is not it will be a very expensive exercise and, one might suggest, as one of my hon. Friends has, one of the worst examples of what we have come to learn to call "instant Government".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to the increase in the number of Ministers of State. We are now to have an increase of one, making 21. This select band of office bearers is a comparatively new feature of Government. I suggest that with the Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretaries this is indeed three-tier Government, with a vengeance. In this case it is a little top-heavy. It is pertinent to ask who, in terms of numbers, and in what grades—although I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer tonight—among the civil servants are to be transferred with him? It is apparent that in the initial stages of the formation of the Land Commission they will be necessary to interpret the provisions of the Land Commission Act, which I gather has just arrived, in its final and pristine state, in the Vote Office tonight. They will be required not only to advise the Land Commission; they will have to do something to help district valuers in their tasks.
We must remember with some anxiety the many thousands of householders who are just beginning to understand the effect of this Act upon them. Whereas there are thousands of householders, there will be hundreds of solicitors, land agents and estate agents who are shortly to become involved in the invidious task of interpreting the provisions of this new Act before any case law has been established to guide them.
I speak as one of the hon. Members who have been faced with this problem. I hope I shall not stray too much from the rules of order when I say that last Saturday a lady came to see me with a certain problem about the effect that this Act would have upon some property which she proposed to buy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That would be out of order; it has nothing to do with the transfer of functions.

Mr. Murton: I finish by saying that no one has been able to advise her.
Will the right hon. Gentleman and his staff be available to answer the type of query which I am not allowed to discuss tonight? This is a very important point. If we cannot write to him personally on these matters, how will we be placed to ask Parliamentary Questions? Will he answer for the rump of his Ministry, or will his superior officer take over this task? Are we to have any explanatory White Papers, if that is the right expression to use, as to how this Bill is going to work? If so, will the transfer of responsibilities which is now about to take place hold up their publication?
The right hon. Gentleman, in his opening remarks, referred to his Ministry as a "core" Ministry with dependent satellite bodies. I would say that that is a very good description if we are referring to the planets, because I would compare his Ministry to the moon, which is pretty well dead in the centre, with, shall we say, a certain amount of activity on the periphery.
That peripheral activity which he described to us tonight was interesting; there were functions which had considerable value. But to my mind the whole grand design which was created by the Labour Government has really in effect been a bit of a fiasco.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of strategic and tactical planning, and it was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that there was some difficulty inasmuch as the brigadier was doing the strategic and the major-general was reduced to doing the tactical planning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. G. Rippon) said in an aside—which I do not think hon. Members heard—that this had been

tackled like a wartime operation. These are familiar words in this place because they have been uttered by a right hon. Gentleman in a superior position to that of the Minister himself.
There is one other thing which I should like to comment upon as regards other legislation which the right hon. Gentleman's Department was preparing. He said that the preparation of legislation on leasehold reform was needed speedily. Well, I am tempted to ask where is it, and indeed I do so, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman who has just produced his pencil is about to tell us it is imminent. Indeed, it has been imminent for the last 12 months, and we shall watch with great interest to see what form that Bill for leasehold enfranchisement is to take.
There is one other deficiency which has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, which is vital to the future of this country, and that is the question of estuarial barrage schemes.
I know that this is something which we are tardy in planning, but a country such as ours needs all the water it can obtain from its natural resources and I should like to be assured that the Ministry which is now ceasing to be a Ministry is going to pass on to the component part of another Ministry some really serious forward planning. More than forward planning, some action is needed on this very vital subject, because I think that of all the things that we have to worry about in the future it is the shortage of water that is most important.
I think I have said enough in winding up this very interesting debate on the demise of this Ministry. I think it would be fair to say, and I do not wish to be unkind about this, that the whole exercise has really been one of utter futility. The formulation of this Ministry was announced with a sound of trumpets. It now departs not with the dignity of muffled drums, as one would hope and expect, but instead with a pathetic and rather reedy squeak.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I do not know why the Opposition are so gloomy, depressed, down at the mouth and unoriginal on this topic. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) quoted from a speech of his


right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). I recall a famous occasion when that right hon. Gentleman said, "Never more a gladsome morning "—and he was speaking to the Conservative benches.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Willey: No. I will not give way. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was remarkably rude. His gimmickry, through his paucity and poverty of language, is wearing thin. He called the Land Commission muck and he calls this Measure muck. Has he no other word in his vocabulary?

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Willey: No. The hon. Gentleman contributed nothing to the debate. If he intends to continue to repeat himself as he does on these matters he will soon entirely lose the ear of the House. He is much more able, and why he has got into this lazy, indolent habit of repeating what he has said on other matters I do not know, but I hope that he will take my cautionary advice and be more helpful in future.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Willey: No.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. It is usual, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say the least, for the Minister to give way after making a personal attack of that kind. I merely wished to impart the advice to the right hon. Gentleman that he misquoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) who, in fact, said, "Never glad confident morning again". For the Minister, of course, there never was a "glad confident morning".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Willey: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's definition of usual courtesy about other matters. He is like most people who talk in the manner which he adopts; he is thin-skinned. But I am obliged to him for making the correction.
During the debate hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about strategic planning, tactical planning and overall planning. These are real difficulties. Apart from that, we have had little—

although some—comment by way of constructive contribution. Something has been said about the Land Commission and when I interrupted the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) I did not intend to suggest that we should not discuss this matter. I agree that the Land Commission is an important subject and that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was right to say that it is concerned with this transfer, but I am unable, because of the rules of order, to go into the detailed points about the Land Commission.
I have been depressed by some of the points that have been made about the Commission. It has been stated repeatedly in the House that the desired information will be available at the beginning of March. Booklets will be issued to assist and guide builders, estate agents and the general public. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) asked about Parliamentary Questions. As he knows, I have purposely extended the scope for asking them by allowing wider powers of direction to the Commission.

Mr. Murton: The problem about Parliamentary Questions I had in mind was that if these Questions are asked on the same day as the Minister of Housing and Local Government—namely, Tuesday—is asked Questions, we will get precisely nowhere, due to the short period of time available for those Questions.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for defining the point he had in mind. It is a matter that should and, I assure him, will be discussed through the usual channels. We are in great difficulty over Question Time and I agree that this matter must be kept under review.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I also raised this matter. I asked whether in future Questions would be put down to the Minister of State for Land and Natural Resources or whether they would be put down to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, bearing in mind the large number of Questions which are always addressed to that right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply to that question now, although I assure him that attention will be paid to what he said.
I was impressed by what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said in illustrating the difficulties involved in providing adequate machinery, and I congratulate him on mentioning the Morecambe barrage, particularly since the hon. Member for Crosby asked himself a number of rhetorical questions on a number of subjects, the Morecambe barrage being one of them. The Morecambe barrage project is one without parallel in the world. To set out to provide water on this scale is quite unprecedented. This is something that we have got to deal with. It again gives rise to planning problems. If one provides water on this scale, one has a good deal of in-train organisation and supply problems. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and also to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that when I considered the countryside I was up against the problem of the planning machinery. I took what I think was the right decision, though I am not sure whether I satisfied the hon. Member at the time. Maybe I misunderstood him. But I think I took the right decision in saying that we should not disturb the present planning responsibilities. Planning is essentially a local function, and one has to be very careful about disturbing this.
On forestry, I agree that there is a conflict here. Trees are a very important part of any countryside policy, but I think it is right, as we are doing under this Order, to recognise that the primary functional concern of the Forestry Commission is the production and disposal of trees. For that reason, I think the responsibility should return to the Ministry of Agriculture. At the same time, we have got to rely on the Commission to some considerable extent in afforestation not only for commercial but for amenity purposes.

Mr. Corfield: It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has some special connecting link with local authorities. The Ministry of Transport has exactly the same link regarding roads. The Department of Education and Science has a number of links with regard to education. The Ministry of Health has a number of links. There is no reason why, had the right hon. Gentleman taken planning

powers, he should not have the same links with regard to planning as those other Departments have with regard to transport, education and health.

Mr. Willey: I am not ruling out what the hon. Member says. I am not quarrelling with him about that. I quarrel with him when he says that there is no reason for doing what I did. After all, we have got in the crucible the whole question of local government and the shape that it will take. I am only making the point. I am not saying that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman about this. One is providing a parallel line of communication. One is not at the same time resolving the problem of providing for overall strategic planning. Apart from the question of local authorities, there is also the question of the Department of Economic Affairs which has been mentioned and the progress which has been made with its regional machinery.
To sum up, I believe that this is the right pragmatic decision to take in the present circumstances. The machinery of government is always subject to review. This is why I would have welcomed more constructive contributions from the Opposition. The whole problem of planning is alive and moving, and this is something that we have got to keep under review. We must not believe that we have settled the problem merely by the steps that we are taking tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES (HARTLEPOOL)

11.4 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
That the Hartlepool Order 1966, dated 30th November, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.


This is an Order made under the Local Government Act, taking effect after action by the Local Government Commission and a decision by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The proposal which is before the House is to set up a new county borough by joining the old non-county borough of Hartlepool with the old county borough of West Hartlepool.
I will start by explaining the timetable, because it is always helpful, in looking at these Orders, to see how the thing has developed. The Local Government Commission began its inquiries in the North-East in the autumn of 1959 and draft proposals were prepared by the Commission in April, 1962. The statutory consultation took place between October and November, 1962. The final Report of the Commission was made in October, 1963. The public inquiry ordered by the then Minister was held in December, 1964, and the decision letter came in February, 1966. This is fully consistent with the procedure which the Lord President of the Council announced, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, and when the Royal Commission was established, of taking those Reports of the Local Government Commission which were already completed and taking action either to disregard them or put them into operation.
In this case my right hon. Friend had no hesitation at all in putting this into operation. There has been a remarkable uniformity of opinion about the desirability of this proposal.
The first question which I want the House to consider is whether the union between Hartlepool and West Hartlepool is a sensible one. There is a long history of proposals to do this and the Local Government Boundary Commission of 1947 recommended that there should be a single county borough made up of the two towns. The proposal was looked at by the Local Government Commission and in its draft proposals it said in paragraph 59:
The Hartlepools have been virtually a single urban area for many years. About one third of the working population of Hartlepool works in West Hartlepool and many people living in West Hartlepool work in Hartlepool. West Hartlepool provides the principal commercial services, shops and entertainments for the people of both and for most purposes except local government the Hartlepools are already regarded as one town.

The Commision, when it came to its final conclusion after its consultations, looked again at the question of union and said in paragraph 71:
Here we need merely say that we do not think that there is any argument based on balance of advantage to the inhabitants of County Durham that would justify the demotion of a unified Hartlepool.
The same view was taken when the inspector came to look at the possibilities of this union becoming demoted and not being a county borough. He said:
No attempt was made to justify it on the grounds that the services or administration were inefficient or incompetent. In fact it was expressly denied that any such suggestion was intended.
The Commission said:
The joining of the two Hartlepools into one local government area is clearly desirable and would make for more effective and convenient local government in the area as a whole.
In the end the Commission said:
Nothing that we read in the written representations or heard at the conference shook our view that the two Hartlepools are in fact one community.
There is powerful evidence going back quite a long time to justify both the joining of the two Hartlepools together and the establishment not of a non-county borough but of a county borough.
There is no doubt that the new county borough will be viable as a local authority. Whereas at present West Hartlepool has a population of 78,500, Hartlepool will bring in an additional 18,000, giving a total population of 96,500. The new rateable value will be £3·8 million, which means a rateable value per head of £39, a larger rateable value per head than in comparable county boroughs of very long history like Blackburn, Gateshead, St. Helens and York. Nor is there any substantial ground for fearing that it will affect the County of Durham from which the area is being taken.
I recognise that it is only fair to look at this matter in conjunction with the other proposals upon which decisions have been taken, the Tees-side proposals and the Sunderland proposals. The effect of these proposals taken together will be to reduce the population of the county by 17 per cent. and the rateable value by about 25 per cent., so that Durham, which at present is the


seventh largest county in population, will go down to be the ninth. There is, therefore, no suggestion of a shattering blow to the county.
It may be asked: if that is so, why has this very desirable marriage never taken place before? The real reason is that, although it has seemed clear to outside observers and to West Hartlepool, the citizens of Hartlepool, a very old borough with a long history, did not want to be absorbed in West Hartlepool, which they regarded as a good deal newer. They were jealous of their independence, and they did, in fact, at the hearing and in representations to the Commission oppose the union. But the decision having been taken, they co-operated in setting up the new county borough.
Statesmanship has been shown on both sides. The borough is taking the name of Hartlepool, the old name and the old charter of the smaller borough and smaller community. There has been a good deal of debate and disagreement from time to time, naturally, in working out the arrangements, but it is right to say that in the end both Hartlepool and West Hartlepool are content to accept this arrangement as being in the best interests of the town and the area.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President, when he gave his decision letter, made a move towards removing one source of disagreement. There is the village of Greatham in County Durham, in the rural district of Stockton, and, although the Commission recommended that that should be in the new county borough, my right hon. Friend thought that, in the interests of what people felt and wanted to do and the nature of the village, it should not be included. One source of disagreement was, therefore, removed.
What grounds are there for objecting to the Order? The only possible ground is the one we have explored at great length before, the question whether we should make any changes until the Royal Commission has reported. In this case, that is an objection which it would be very difficult to get on its legs. This proposal has been long recognised as desirable by a great number of people, including the impartial people who have looked at the problems. It is a scheme which has been brought to the verge of

fruition and completion. It does not make a new county borough. It removes one county borough and creates another which is larger, wealthier and a more effective unit of local government.
For all those reasons, I commend the Order to the House.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The House is very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Order and the history leading up to it. I was only sorry that he did not explain Article 11(4), which reads:
The jurisdiction of the Hartlepool Court of Pie Poudre shall extend to the new county borough.
I have not a clue what such a glamorous title means, but I suppose that it is quite all right that we should approve that provision.
To be more serious, I think that it is unfortunate that the Order is introduced in advance and in anticipation of the Royal Commission's recommendations. The Parliamentary Secretary passed that off in a rather casual way at the end of his speech, saying that no case could be made out for waiting for the Royal Commission in this instance.
I think that he is wrong and that too many such Orders are coming forward at present which should wait until we know the sort of structure of local government the Royal Commission will recommend. It may seem very reasonable to merge the Borough of Hartlepool and the County Borough of West Hartlepool when one considers merely those two local government bodies. The proposals were not made unanimously but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, they had been canvassed over many years and there is no doubt that there was a majority in favour within those two bodies. But can they be considered in isolation like that?
The proposals come as Chapter 5 in a substantial report, the "Report and Proposals for the North Eastern General Review Area". They cover Northumberland, Sunderland county borough, Darlington county borough, Teesdale, Tees-side, and, to some extent, County Durham. The first sentence of the Report and Proposals reads:
The North Eastern General Review Area comprises the administrative county of the North Riding of Yorkshire and the parts of


the administrative counties of Durham and Northumberland not included in the Tyneside Special Review Area, together with the county boroughs of Darlington, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and West Hartlepool.
That is a very substantial area, and one cannot tell what the Royal Commission may recommend for such a wide area and such a variety of authorities.
We were told that the Royal Commission will report very soon. Although that does not mean in a matter of weeks or months, it will not be a matter of years. If that is so, it may be necessary to rescind the Order, and other local government Orders which now come before the House, soon after they have been made, and soon after the upheaval caused by them. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary can forecast the time which will pass before we receive the report and recommendations of the Royal Commission, but it cannot be so far ahead that, having regard to the time we have waited for this Order, we could not wait just a little longer to make certain that we have the right structure.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the investigation in this matter began in 1959 The North-Eastern General Review Area Report and Proposals were made in October, 1963. We have waited so long, why not wait just that little bit longer so that we receive the Royal Commission's report? There are some doubtful points about the Order. The 96,000 population is small for a county borough and it may not be the right size for a county borough, or such type of local authority when we see what the Royal Commission recommends.
Furthermore, the Tees-side Order has not yet come before the House, and I understand that that is quite substantially disputed. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was very little opposition and very small damage to the county. I have been glancing at the verbatim report of the public inquiry, and there are over 60 paragraphs of evidence by the county council directed towards is opposition to the Order, and the damage which would be done. There are several doubtful points about the Order which make me feel that we ought to have waited and been quite sure before making this substantial upheaval in local government, so that we will not have to do it again when the Royal Commission reports.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has, perhaps unintentionally, overstated the area of objection. The House will be satisfied to know that there is no objection from Stockton Rural District Council, an affected part of the Order, nor from Hartlepool, again an affected part of the Order. There is also no objection from Durham County, which is a larger body interested in the effects of the Order. In referring to the size of the population he unfortunately was not able to take into account the fact that the general growth potential from the Registrar's figures show that in West Hartlepool during the next five years the population will increase from 78,000 to about 85,000, and that with the population of Hartlepool and its natural increase, the total population of the new county borough will be considerably higher than 100,000. This is a reasonable population unit for a good, viable form of local government.
I understand that the temper of the House is to let us have this Order and that the climate of comment is not one of criticism, but of helpfulness. The hon. Member was naturally concerned about the proposals, because he considered them to be in isolation. This is a reasonably valid point; a highly contentious argument surrounds any reorganisation of local government. In this case there is a natural desire for these two towns to come together for a very definite reason.
The hon. Member said that we might have waited a little longer in order to be certain that we had the right structure. The desire for unity now arises out of a very long period of attempting to get together. The amalgamation of these two towns has been under discussion for 80 years and the desire to amalgamate has come from both towns at different periods, admittedly for different reasons.
In 1902 and 1919 Hartlepool took the first steps to achieve amalgamation. In 1914 and 1925 West Hartlepool took the initiative to get amalgamation. The tragedy is that, whereas the principle was accepted, failure came about only on matters of detail such as differential rating and ward re-divisions. In 1919 both councils approved the principle of amalgamation, and again matters broke down on small matters of detail, but


matters which in a local area one must respect. In 1946 the Local Boundary Commission agreed in its recommendations that amalgamation should take place. However, the Commission was wound up in 1957. In 1951, West Hartlepool promoted a Bill, and, although it created a good deal of difficulty and argument, the House accepted it. It was turned down in another place.
This is one constituency. I represent both towns equally. I have the interests of both equally at heart. But from a local government point of view, they have been divided in the past. During the last three years, principally because of depression and unemployment, both towns have had to work together in order to attract industry and to lift their economies so that the amenities they require can be provided. Therefore, this week is a very fortunate week for the Hartlepools. There has been started, after ten years' struggle, a major shopping centre at a cost running into millions of pounds. The House and another place will, I am sure, bring about the unity which will give new heart to The Hartlepools.
Secondly, apart from it being one constituency, it is joined by a common dock system. It is joined by a common trading estate. Its housing estates are adjacent. It has the same coroner's court, same county court, same Customs department, same inspector of taxes, same hospital management committee, same head post office, same telephone exchange, same police division. It enjoys the same railway station and same regional bus station. It shares employment and the availability of work in both towns. There is a common interest in its social, cultural and sporting activities in that 35 organisations are directly concerned and 67 are indirectly concerned with both towns.
I thank the House for listening to me and for providing us with the facility to have these two towns at last amalgamated.

Mr. MacColl: I should like to take up two points. First, the Court of Pie Poudre is a very ancient court relating to merchants. The researches of my Department show that it has no functions whatever. We hope that the Royal Commission will report quickly, in the next

year or so, but how long it will be before the results of the report are put into effect will depend on what it says and upon how revolutionary are its proposals.

Mr. Graham Page: What does "a year or so" mean? I hope it does not mean several years, but months.

Mr. MacColl: I am taking two or three years from the date it started and it has been going for some time. I do not think it would be right to stop all improvement in local government structure until that time comes. Nothing in this Order will very seriously affect this position. This will mean only a larger and more effective county borough where previously there was a smaller one. County Durham is losing only 18,000 of its very large population, because West Hartlepool is already a county borough.
I congratulate the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on what is for him a great achievement. This is the end of a long history and I hope that under his guidance, the new county borough will long flourish and will have a great part to play in the future of the North East.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Hartlepool Order 1966. dated 30th November 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

SALMON (DRIFT-NET FISHING)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Secretary Ross.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: Now, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Lawson.

Mr. Armstrong: Now, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That Mr. Arthur Palmer be discharged from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; and that Mr. Edward Rowlands be added.
Those in favour, say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. Order, order.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called Mr. Secretary Ross.

Mr. Armstrong: I said, "Now, Sir."

Mr. Stodart: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry—

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. May we get this clear? Has this Order been moved, and are we entitled to debate it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is,
That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Before we pass the Order, I think it would be as well if I said a few words in moving this Order. The House will be aware that this is the third occasion in successive years on which we have put forward Orders of this kind and therefore, I do not want to take up the time of the House in explaining in detail the purpose of the Order. Its purpose is to extend for two years the operation of the present ban on drift-net fishing for salmon off the coast of Scotland after the present Order expires on 15th February. Its effect would therefore be to maintain the status quo.
The House will recall that the prohibition was first introduced for a period of three years in 1962. It gave rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the fishermen affected by it, and we on this side were critical of its introduction. Nevertheless, since taking office, the present Government have felt obliged on two occasions to extend the operation of the ban, on each occasion for a year at a time. I should like, therefore, to recall why this was done, and why, on this occasion, we felt it desirable to extend the ban for two years.
The reason is simply this. The question of drift net fishing was one of the matters dealt with by the Hunter Committee on Scottish Salmon and Trout Fisheries. The Committee recommended that the ban should be made permanent, but we think it would be unwise, and indeed impossible, for the Government to reach final decisions on this issue in isolation from, and in advance of, the other recommendations of the Committee,

and without being fully satisfied that this was the correct proposal.
This is not the occasion to discuss the general questions raised by the Report, but it is fair to say that the Committee's recommendation for the permanent prohibition of drift-net fishing—and, indeed, the additional proposal for the prohibition of all fishing for salmon in the sea—was an integral part of the fishing regime which the Committee proposed. It is, therefore, very much bound up with the other main aspects of the Report, which are wide ranging and far-reaching and involve radical changes in the present fishing methods and administration and various aspects of the law on this matter.
On the last occasion, a year ago, when an extension Order was brought before the House, we said that its purpose was to provide time for a comprehensive study of all the implications of the Hunter Committee's recommendations. Last year at this time we were still receiving written observations on the recommendations from a large number of associations and other organisations which had an interest in the subject and we had begun the process of exploring the practical and financial implications of the Committee's proposals, some of which the Committee was, for obvious reasons, not itself able to develop in detail.
Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had hoped that we would by now have been much further forward with this process, and I have no doubt that many hon. Members share that view. We have, however, followed the advice which has been pressed upon us from many quarters in the House to take our time over this issue. We have certainly not wasted time on it. On the contrary, the more we have studied the comments which have been submitted on the Report and the more we have examined it in detail, the more obvious it has become that many of the features of the new arrangements which were proposed were acutely controversial and that over a large area there is far from general agreement among the various bodies and individuals most closely concerned.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion, I think correctly, that much more time is needed for the further consultation and consideration which this complex, important and, in some ways,


technical subject demands. My right hon. Friend has decided in particular that there would be every advantage in a greater measure of consultation with the interested bodies than has been possible by correspondence. We are grateful for the amount of correspondence which has come in and for the useful submissions which we have received, but more is necessary. We need to supplement what we already have. We have, therefore, begun a programme of meetings with the main organisations, of which there are a large number, at which it will be possible to sound their views and have the benefit of their expert knowledge and advice on many aspects of the Report. Only yesterday, a meeting with one association lasted seven hours, at the end of which the meeting still had not reached a conclusion.
Talks have, therefore, been held with these organisations and others are to follow, but this is a large commitment and it is only reasonable and realistic to recognise that the process will take time Indeed, time will also be needed to assimilate and reach conclusions on the information and views which have been put to us, many of which are conflicting, and thereafter to decide upon and to frame the content of any legislation. That is why we now propose an extension of the present sitation for a further two years.
My right hon. Friend and I have decided, both separately and together, on this two years' extension, first, because we regard it as realistic. It would be wrong for us, in examining all the evidence which has come forward and all the views which we have had and some of which frequently conflict, to raise any expectation among hon. Members of earlier legislation than can be done within the proposed two years. Secondly, it would be equally wrong for us to raise any false hopes, either on the part of the drift-net fishermen or among the river interests, that an earlier decision might be made. A delay is a delay, but the period of two years at least has the benefit of reducing the annual uncertainty which has occurred.
I recognise that the need for further consideration will cause disappointment in many quarters. Above all, it will cause disappointment among the fishermen whom I know best, those who fish

because they must and not simply for sport and who would like to engage again in drift-netting for salmon, an activity which they pursued briefly but increasingly between 1960 and 1962 but which has now been denied them for over four years. I have explained why it would be wrong to allow a resumption of drift-netting before we were clear what action would be taken on other aspects of the Hunter Report.
Equally, as long as the ban is only temporary and for a stated period, the fishermen at least have the consolation of knowing that the Government's mind is still open on the question. I assure the House that this is the case.
I know, too, that other people are eager to know what shape the management and the administration of the salmon fisheries will take—various angling associations and clubs and river proprietors. They will all be affected in one way or another, and I would assure them that we shall be as quick as we can. Bearing in mind that legislation over salmon has lasted a hundred years, indeed, goes back much further, to David 1 and James 1, with their attempts to bring some kind of control over salmon fishing by "Satter-daie's slops" and so on, clearly it would be worth while for everyone now that we take a little time in order to be sure that when we do formulate legislation we get the right answers.
I hope, therefore, that the House will support this Order.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I feel that first I should perhaps ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether or not the Order which the Under-Secretary has moved is in fact in the category of being an event at all, in view of the fact that other business on the Order Paper was taken before the Order was moved. Perhaps we could have your guidance on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I called this Order one of the Government Whips said "Now". Then subsequently—I think it was the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page): I am not sure: it may have been the hon. Member—I was asked whether this Order would be moved, and therefore I proposed the Question, and then the Under-Secretary of State said that before I collected the


voices he would like to make some observations about it. He has now made some observations about it.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. Surely it is within the recollection of the House that you had called other business, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the Under-Secretary moved the Order, and has it not been overtaken by the fact that you had already called other business before?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I do not think so. The position is this. It is not necessary for anyone to make a speech in moving the Order.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Is the effect of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there can be a change in the order of business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That is not the effect of my Ruling.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Surely in this case, although the Whip may have moved that the Order should be taken now, we then, as I understand it, moved on to other business. Therefore, I cannot quite follow the rule of order by which it is possible to go back to this Order and allow the Minister to make a speech about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was taken up by the hon. Member—for Crosby, I think it was, if I recollect aright.

Mr. Rippon: With all respect to him, can he change the rules of debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No one has changed the rules of debate. This Order was, as I understand it, moved without the Minister making a speech.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James H. Hoy): That is right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I then put the Question, and the Minister then said he wanted to make some observations about it, before I collected the voices, and for the last 10 or 15 minutes we have proceeded on that footing.

Mr. Rippon: Further to the point of order. Do I understand that the position was that you understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it had been moved but did

not know that it had been moved? Does not the point arise, therefore, whether in fact the voices were ever collected? I am told that they were not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is precisely because the voices were not collected that we are having a debate, and I cannot collect the voices on this Order till the debate has been concluded.

Mr. Corfield: Surely, if the voices were collected and we passed on to other business, the business which we are now purported to be discussing must have fallen? I cannot understand by what rule of order it is possible to go back and allow the Minister to make a speech and collect the voices afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope the House will not misunderstand the position.

An hon. Member: We do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First of all I called Mr. Secretary Ross to move this Order. As I understand it, as Mr. Secretary Ross was not here, a Whip said "Now". I was then going to proceed to put another Question, but my attention was drawn to the fact that this Order had been moved. Therefore, I put this Question, and I was about to collect the voices when the Minister said that, before I collected the voices, he wanted to make a speech about it. That course was taken at the suggestion made, I think quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Crosby. The position now is that we are debating this Order, and we have not moved on to the last item on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stodart: I wish merely to establish the facts, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My impression was that you did call Mr. Secretary Ross, and neither he nor any other Scottish Minister was present on the Front Bench to move this Order—[Interruption.] With great respect, I think that he was not on the bench at the time. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in fact went on to call the next business and did call it. If I am incorrect, I will withdraw, but that certainly was my impression.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is partly correct and partly incorrect. He is correct in saying that, when I first called the Order, there was not a Scottish Minister on the bench. But there


was a Whip, who said "Now", quite correctly. That had the effect of moving the Order. If no speech had been made about it, I would, then and there, have collected the voices. However, I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Crosby, and subsequently by the Minister, who said that he wanted to make a speech about it.
I am prepared to put the Question again now, if that would suit hon. Members.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that you did move on to the next bit of business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was proposing, if necessary, to move on to the next business, but had not moved on to it when my attention to this particular Order was drawn by the hon. Member for Crosby.

Mr. Stodart: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is what you say, I am perfectly ready to admit that I misheard and misunderstood what happened.
What I would say, therefore, is that it is the failure of a Minister to be upon the bench which has caused us to be put into this slight difficulty. I had thought, charitably, that the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am very glad to welcome to the Government Front Bench for his first speech, was handling this Order in the guise of a distinctly reluctant debutante, in view of its history, and so reluctant was he that he was not here to do it.
There was urgency expressed last year and the year before on this Order by the Scottish Office spokesman, and I am certain that it would have been extremely embarrassing for any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues to have to handle the Order tonight.
It is a remarkably good thing that the Prime Minister does not know about the history of this affair—at least, I am sure that he does not—because he would be more determined than ever, as a result of the ineptitude which has been shown in this matter, to go on excluding the Secretary of State for Scotland from discussing any matters of moment that come up in the Cabinet or in Cabinet

Committees. We all know to what that refers.
There is nothing purposeful, brisk or dynamic about the way in which this Order has been handled in the last two years. There is about as much urgency shown on it as I imagine Cleopatra's efforts were urgent to avoid Mark Antony. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman must be, like Joan of Arc, hearing voices when he proposes this extension. It may be the voice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who in 1961 described the proposal to make the Order as a concession to certain selfish private landed interests in Scotland.
On 1st February last year the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said:
This is one promise I can make again this year. It"—
that is the examination—
will be full and urgent…the industry should be given a clear indication of the Government's intentions on the Hunter Committee's Report, and we shall see that it gets it.
During that debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked the rhetorical question—why not an Order for two years? He answered it by saying:
We, in my view correctly, decided that it was right that the House should have the opportunity to debate the matter again if legislation has not been introduced by next February…This is treating the House fairly."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, cc. 1034–36.]
If it was fair to treat the House that way last year, with that logic with which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made his mark in this House, it is thoroughly unfair to have a 2-year extension this year.
But let us get down to brass tacks about this question of not wasting time. We were told last year that the views of those interested were asked for by November, 1965. An extension was given to February, 1966, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East told us a year ago that most of the remaining submissions were expected within the next few weeks. That was on 1st February of last year. Were all those submissions in by last spring? We were told that the examination was to be full and urgent. How many consultations have there been, who has been consulted, and what is holding things up?
During the debates last year and the year before hon. Members on both sides of the House had divided views on whether action should be taken speedily, or whether time should be taken to consider the matter, and I remember that a year ago I came down on the side of the latter. I said that I thought that if it was only a question of a few more weeks, time should be taken to consider it, and during the months that lay ahead a decision could be arrived at. Unless we are given the most compelling reasons by the Minister tonight, I do not think that I could repeat that opinion.
I think that this is a clear example of vacillation on the part of the Scottish Office. I think that we must press the hon. Gentleman to give us a firm assurance that some positive action will be taken on this matter which is of considerable interest to many of those who are engaged in this industry.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the occasion of his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I sympathise with his attitude to this question, because, having gone through this Hunter Report, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have done, I regard it as an extremely difficult document to implement, containing as it does a number of extreme suggestions as a solution to the problem, a series of proposals which should not be proceeded with until there has been considerable time to study them. I think that the Report should be either partly buried or totally altered before there is any suggestion that these details should be implemented.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's position, and I shall be interested to hear whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want the Report implemented. I should like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) to tell us whether a Conservative Government would apply this Report. If so, this would be a very interesting and far-reaching suggestion. I know of few people who would regard it as a complete solution to the problem.
If my hon. Friend is now prolonging the banning of drift netting for salmon for a further period he should take one

or two interim steps, in the interests of justice for those people who have bought drift nets and have now had this type of salmon fishing stopped abruptly while other types are allowed to continue. I see no moral advantage in dragging fish out of a river over drift netting in the sea. If it is argued that the Hunter Committee made this recommendation, and that the Conservative Government put it forward as a justification for banning drift netting at the time, because the carrying on of this type of operation on the scale at which it was developing between 1960 and 1962, could seriously have depleted stocks, I would accept that argument.
But now, could not the Government, in the interim, devise a method of sharing the existing quantity of salmon caught more equitably between the different groups of salmon fishers? I do not suggest that they should allow a resumption of drift netting on the scale of 1960–1962, but there is a peculiar aspect of this problem in my constituency, because fishermen who fish on the Northumberland side of the Tweed are allowed to drift net by licence, while those on the Scottish side can only watch because they are banned from doing the same. I hope that the Scottish Office will consider giving an equal number—a limited and carefully regulated number—of licences for drift netting for salmon, if necessary reducing the number of licences issued for salmon fishing in rivers.
The shell fishermen receive no subsidy from the Government. They are not covered by the White Fish Regulations or the Inshore Fishing Regulations. The price of shellfish has not improved substantially in recent years, and in some areas shellfishers are in difficult straits. It would be a reasonable solution if some licences were issued in respect of boats under 35 ft. in length, concentrated among this small group of fishermen, so that they would receive an extra bonus by sharing in this more profitable type of fishing. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into this question and that the Scottish Office will consider the problem of producing equity for the people who have been stopped from salmon fishing in the interim period. If the Government decide to bury or largely forget the Hunter Report I shall not be sorry.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I start by referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) about limited fishing by boats under 35 ft. in length. That may be applicable in his area, but it is not necessarily applicable to the rest of Scotland. In my constituency there are no boats of that size. Therefore, other methods should be thought of, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general thesis that a strictly limited amount of drift netting for salmon should be licensed.
We have heard the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary two or three times, but there was a significant difference this time, in that the Statutory Instrument asks for two years more, whereas in the past we have had only a one-year extension. The hon. Member tried to justify this additional two years, but he failed lamentably to convince me of its necessity. In paragraph 162 the Hunter Report rightly points out that unregulated drift-net fishing could quickly deplete salmon stocks in some rivers. The inference from that is, of course, that there would be no future in the long run for anglers, for the salmon netters nor for the drift netters themselves if it continued in an unregulated manner—and of course "unregulated" is the key word.
On 4th February, 1965, the then Minister of State had this to say in moving the Statutory Instrument of that year:
We hope that this will give us time to consider the recommendations made in the final Report of the Hunter Committee…
At that stage the Government had not received the final report of the Hunter Committee. Now, two years later, we still have no pronouncement from the Government, and the hon. Gentleman has not convinced me—and I am sure other hon. Members on both sides of the House—that this extra two years is necessary.
The then Minister of State said further, referring to the speech of an hon. Member in the House, that the hon. Member
…wanted the matter to be treated as one of urgency. I agree with him. This is a problem in Scotland which calls for action.

We are saying that tonight. We have been saying it for three solid years. Again, the then Minister of State said
When we receive the Hunter Report we shall waste no time in considering it and seeing what ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1367–79.]
After stating in the same debate that the Secretary of State had asked for representations from associations and individuals to be in his hands by November, 1965—and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has already mentioned this—the then Minister of State said on 1st February, 1966:
…most of them have done so and we expect to receive most of the remaining submissions within the next few weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1018.]
If we are to be charitable to the Government, I would say that the "next few weeks" went possibly to 1st March, which therefore means that the Government have had 11 months to consider the representations which have been made to them. Yet now we are asked for a further ban for two years.
I am bound to repeat the question—why this inordinate extension? The banning of drift netting is but one of the many recommendations of the Hunter Committee, and everyone agrees that the Hunter Committee both in its first and in final Report said that uncontrolled drift netting for salmon would be disastrous. Nevertheless, the Hunter Committee quotes examples, figures, for the whole of the catch for salmon, grilse and sea trout for 1963, and goes on to say that no less than 81 per cent. of this catch was caught by so-called fixed engine or sea nets, estuarial nets.
That is opposed to 19 per cent. caught by rod and line. By no stretch of the imagination could drift netting, even on the basis of the 1960–1962 catches, be said to catch 300,000 fish in one season, although it is conceivable, of course, that they could do that and more if there were more boats involved in drift netting. Therefore, drift netting is not the only despoiler of salmon and sea trout stocks.
The Hunter Committee said, in relation to drift netting, that three courses were open to the Government. First, uncontrolled drift netting; second, a total ban on drift netting ; and third, regulated drift netting by licensing, landing quotas,


etc. The Report said in this connection that the Committee considered annual and weekly close times, restrictions on the length and mesh of nets, the licensing of boats, catch quotas, length of boats, licensing of nets, and they rejected the lot. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man—and this follows from what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said—to devise a licensing system for a very limited number of seine netters, or similar types of boats.
Consider the position in England. We were told by the former Minister of State in the previous debate on this subject that drift netting is the traditional method in England and Wales for catching salmon and that it is not applicable to Scotland. The position in England and Wales is, briefly, that licensing is of two types; it is by river boards in their areas, under the Salmon —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Alternative methods of fishing were ruled out of order on the last occasion when this matter was debated. This Order is confined to extending the present ban for a period of time and, therefore, the scope of this debate is somewhat limited.

Mr. Baker: Perhaps it is pertinent to say that it is possible in England and Wales to drift net for salmon under licence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to this Order, which seeks to extend the present ban in Scotland for a period of time.

Mr. Baker: Everybody in Scotland is concerned about the conservation of salmon stocks, which are a natural asset and tourist attraction. I repeat that if unrestricted drift netting is allowed to go on, Scotland will suffer disastrously. It is, therefore, pertinent to ask the Under-Secretary a number of questions further afield. What have been the results so far of the salmon tagging experiments being conducted off Greenland? Since Greenland is probably the largest area in the North Atlantic for the feeding and growing of salmon, we should be given information about these experiments. If a great number of salmon are being caught as they have been in the past, that is doing damage to Scotland's fishing. What progress does the hon. Gentleman

have to report about an international agreement in regard to restricting salmon fishing off Greenland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that matter. It is not right to ask the Minister such questions and it would not be right for him to answer them

Mr. Baker: I urge the Government to take urgent action and I seek an assurance that if a decision is taken within these two years and if some sort of licensing system for drift-net fishing is possible, the ban will be taken off before the statutory time.
I press the Minister to consider the question of compensation for drift netters. This matter has been raised many times in these debates. I suggest that if a final decision is taken to prevent drift netting for all time, it will then be necessary to take action to pay compensation to those fishermen who bought nets and other equipment but who have been unable to utilise them and who have so far received no compensation.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I add my congratulations to those which have been offered to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that in future he will not always be faced with such complex issues as the future of the commercial salmon fishing industry of Scotland and that he will not be afflicted with the kind of ungracious procedural wrangles which were inflicted on the House at the beginning of this debate.
This is indeed a complex matter and well rehearsed in that it has certain similarities with last year's debate on this subject. I suppose that it was inevitable that my hon. Friend would have accusations of procrastination hurled at him. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were, I suppose, bound to say that the Government had been unable to make up their mind about the provisions of the Hunter Report. As I expected, they also used as ammunition some of the remarks of the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), with which to pelt the Under-Secretary on his debut at the Dispatch Box. This seems to me—and it was done by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.


West (Mr. Stodart) with dreary persistence—to be extremely irrelevant.
We are faced with a request by the Government to extend a necessary holding operation. I stress that it is a holding operation and I hope that the Government do not look upon this as something which will graduate or fade into the status quo, as something which will inevitably be incorporated into a final solution of the problems which are dealt with in the Hunter Report. I am well aware that the case for the total abolition of drift-net fishing for salmon has been strongly stated in the Hunter Report. I use the word "stated", because it was my impression on reading that Report that the argument presented in that section of the Report was stronger on assertion than on evidence. Although it speaks eloquently about decimation of stock and puts forward a neat argument on the protection and future management of resources, I hope the Government have the open mind, to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks.
Looking at the figures for 1960–62 relating to the general trend, it is true that there was a mounting poundage of fish being caught by drift-net processes. But this in itself does not seem to be entirely conclusive. I am sure that we would all agree that the results of this so-called depredation, if depredation it be, cannot be assessed for a good number of years, and probably cannot be properly assessed until the results of the season 1968-69 are to hand. We have not got the evidence. As has often been said in the House, what complicates the matter is that if the evidence which does emerge in 1968–69 is inconclusive, it will be impossible to confirm it in future years because if drift-net fishing is stopped, no future evidence will be forthcoming.
Anybody who looks at the figures that the Hunter Report provides for the total catch in 1960–63 will see how inconclusive the evidence is. In 1960 we had a heavy year; 1961 was very poor; 1962 was exceptionally heavy. The same pattern might well be reflected in the late 1960s. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Even if one were bold enough to do so, no doubt some ingenious gentleman could argue that it was something to do

with the Greenland fishing grounds or some other devious factors.
I hope that the Under-Secretary is right in saying that at the moment this is only an interim measure on which he keeps an open mind. I have a definite sympathy with the points made about the differentiation which has crept in between those in England who are drift netting and those in Scotland. There is some suggestion in the Hunter Report that concessions might be made for some of the drift netters in the Southern part of Scotland. I hope the Under-Secretary will be prepared to look at that. It was said that it is necessary to look upon this as an interim measure. But it is also necessary to recognise that the final total implementation of the Hunter Report is something with which this is inextricably enmeshed. It may well be necessary to consider not just this aspect, but the whole field, and this must be done in the future, though not in the too far distant future.
I do not accept the remarks in the Report on the need to fade out coastal netting. This is something that I regard with suspicion. Even if that were accepted, I would still argue about the kind of control of trapping and the profits sharing system which might be brought in. Enough has been seen of the clashing views and thinly-veiled vested interests which abound in this industry to substantiate the claim of the Government that more time is necessary. But we must not have unlimited time. The matter must not be allowed to drift on unnecessarily. But, as was stressed by the then Minister of State almost a year ago, it would be most unprofitable to try to reach hasty and ill-considered decisions on this issue. I certainly accept that. I am willing to give the Government their two years although with the obvious proviso that a decision, however prickly and unpleasant, must be taken sometime.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am the first to associate myself with the congratulations to the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
I will be as brief as the Government have been tardy in this matter. We are asked to extend this Order for a further two years. It has already been said by several hon. Members that there was


every indication that this further extension would not be required. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) to say that this is a very difficult matter and that the Hunter Report is highly controversial, and so on. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) to say that it is irrelevant for hon. Members on this side to accuse the Government of procrastination. I think that it is relevant. The Government have procrastinated. The hon. Member says that he hopes that the Minister will keep an open mind on the matter. I hope that the Minister will not keep an open mind for an indefinite period as he looks like doing.

Mr. Dewar: My criticism is mainly of those hon. Members who have made speeches this evening in which they made that point only and no constructive proposals on what should be done. I trust that the hon. Member will not make the same mistake.

Mr. Johnston: The first constructive suggestion I make is one which the Under-Secretary cannot put directly into operation. He could bring to the notice of the Leader of the House, who wandered in just now and wandered out again, that it is time we had a full debate on the Hunter Report in this House, or in the Scottish Grand Committee. This would be a valuable step forward. It would allow hon. Members to ventilate their views and it would consolidate opinion about what is to be done on the Hunter Report. It is controversial and there are parts of it with which I disagree, but a decision has got to be made and we cannot extend this much further.
My second point is that the Order continues the uncertainty for drift-net fishermen. They have already purchased gear and they have not been compensated for the fact that they have been unable to use it and might not be able to use it in the future either. The Government have a clear responsibility to these people, a responsibility they ought quickly to honour.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Perhaps it came as no great surpise that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) concentrated on the Government's delay in com-

ing to a decision about the future of the salmon industry in Scotland and rather less on the merits of the Order. One might have expected that. But it comes as no surprise because any settlement of the affairs of the salmon industry, if it were to be rushed through, as is apparently suggested, would be bound to be based on the Report of the Hunter Committee, which is a completely unacceptable document in many respects. I agree with the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Macintosh).
The question we are entitled to ask tonight is: why are the Government seeking a two years' extension of this Order when last year one year was thought to be sufficient. It becomes abundantly clear, the longer one studies this document and the more evidence is taken on the subject, how fundamentally mistaken are some of the recommendations of the Hunter Committee. When the document first came forward there was an expectation that a document so lengthy and so considered would produce all the answers. This is far from being so. I agree entirely with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) that the evidence put forward by the Hunter Committee on this very question of drift-net fishing is tenuous in the extreme and is full of assertions and very little substance.
I take issue with those hon. Members who have suggested that a principle issue involved in this extension of the ban is the question of compensation for expenditure on nets and other equipment bought before the Order was introduced. This is an important question, but it is one which can be dealt with when the final decision is taken as to the future of drift netting.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Why is it all right to delay two or three years? These people were dependent for their living on the gear they had bought.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates. I have the greatest sympathy for those who have been prevented from fishing in this way, as the hon. Gentleman will realise when I am allowed to continue. But I am on the question of compensation at the moment, and I was saying that I do


not regard it as of prime importance. The vital issue is whether the underlying reasons for the Hunter Committee's recommendation of the ban are justified. The main underlying reason put forward by the Hunter Committee was that it was in the interests of the proper management of fisheries. One is entitled to ask—management for whom? The fishermen who have been drift netting for years are among the most interested people, and, if they are to be debarred from access to this important local resource, who is to be left with the resource?
It is most unsatisfactory if the banning of drift-net fishing will benefit only or principally the absentee sporting proprietors who fish these rivers, let them out at exorbitant rents and then carry out the netting operations themselves. In so far as the Hunter Committee's proposals envisage a continuance of the right of the absentee sporting proprietor, they are quite unacceptable. In my estimation, the Committee fell down not so much in its scientific judgment—although there is some question as to whether the evidence was very convincing—but in its apparent failure to grasp that the interests of the absentee sporting proprietors and local commercial operators could not be reconciled as the Committee suggested.
It is all very well to talk as the Committee did of proprietors and operators on one river co-operating in a single fishery. In many Scottish rivers, it is the proprietors themselves who are the operators who not only let the fishing at the rents I have described but then despoil their hapless tenants by engaging in the wholesale commercial netting of the rivers.
There is only one way to ensure that this important asset is fairly utilised, and that is to take the salmon fishing of Scotland into public ownership. Only when the fishing belongs to the people of Scotland will it be accessible for proper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into that now.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not propose to go into that question now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My views on the subject are well known. But, with this underlying

view, I find myself reluctant to support the Order tonight because it extends for two years an apparent discrimination against local fishermen who have in the past derived a useful supplement to their income from it. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) in saying that they have derived their livelihood from it. I think that for only few fishermen has it been more than a supplement. But if this grace period of two years is to be accepted, I hope that it will be used by the Government to work out a system whereunder the salmon resources of our Scottish rivers are made available to genuinely local operators, on licence from the State, opening up these great and attractive facilities to anglers both local and tourist. Then the apparent inequity of extending the Order will be wiped out.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Not one of the hon. Members opposite who have spoken has succeeded in giving a satisfactory reason for the Government's action in extending the Order for two years. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave it up altogether and said that he opposed the Order.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I said that I was reluctant to support it unless the Government used the time they had been given.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I think that the reason why the Government have introduced the Order, extending the original Order by two years, is that debates such as this have been in the nature of an annual operation. The Government have been getting the worst of it each time, and are trying to put it off for two years.
It is a sorry story. I think that it was two years ago that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who used to speak for the Government in this matter, first introduced the word "urgency". How relieved he must be that he does not have to speak for the Government tonight. Two years later there is still no hint of any decision. What has happened to the urgency? I think that the Government feel that urgency in a problem disappears if one disregards the problem. Two years have


already elapsed, and if the Order goes through it will be four years.
Meanwhile, what of the fishermen to whom the Order applies? They are left becalmed by a windless, mindless Government. There is no thought of their needs and wishes and—above all, and what is most galling—their rights. I am sure that what the Government are really trying to do by this manoeuvre is to damp down controversy still further, and finally work their will undisturbed.
What they fail to understand is that they are compounding injustice. Drift-net fishermen were stopped from using their gear on 15th September, 1962, and no compensation was offered. The Hunter Committee then made its Report and said that although the ban should continue the case against drift netting could not be proved, but it was considering the matter in the light of all the other methods of fishing for salmon. Then it reported again and said that all those other methods should be discontinued. But nothing has been done. All salmon fishing flourishes except drift-net fishing. Every year that that continues adds to the injustice inflicted on our fishermen by a Labour Government.

Mr. Hoy: The principal Order was made in 1962.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: This is a decision that has been taken by the Labour Government. The Hunter Committee reported since the Labour Government came to power. The Hunter Committee said that there should be abolition of all methods of salmon fishing, but the other methods continue while the drift-net fishermen are stopped. On the face of it, that is extremely unfair, unless there is some sort of compensation.

Mr. Dewar: I am not very clear whether the hon. Member's solution is to let drift-netting continue uncontrolled or quickly abolish all other methods of salmon fishing.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: What the Government should do is to present an answer to the problem as quickly as possible. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the Under-Secretary of State told us that meetings with interested and expert bodies, lasting over seven hours, had failed to produce an answer. I doubt if those meetings could be expected to provide a final answer, but the

Government should. They are there to govern and they are faced with a situation where the drift-net fishermen have been discriminated against in the prosecution of salmon fishing. It is up to them not only to stop the introduction of this Order but to come to a fair solution of this problem as quickly as possible.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I want to follow what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan) said, although I do not want to enter into the controversy about the relative merits of salmon fishing for sport and commercially. Fishing for salmon for sport is a relatively small part of the salmon industry. If one looks at the 1965 figures in the report on the fisheries of Scotland it will be seen that while 219,000 salmon were caught, out of that total only 64,000 were caught by rod and line. In the case of grilse, 213,000 were caught and only 8,000 by rod and line, and while 288,000 sea trout were caught, only 68,000 were caught by rod and line.
In drawing a distinction between sporting and commercial interests, it has to be recognised that the industry gives employment to 1,600 people in areas of Scotland, where alternative forms of employment are limited. One thing about which I feel strongly is that as long as we have this ban—and it has been described by everyone as an interim measure—the important thing is to see that it is applied fairly and equitably until a final decision is reached.
What evidence does the Under-Secretary have that drift-netting for salmon by foreign boats still continues off our coasts? There is a suggestion that this still happens, but it is very difficult to check. I was drift-netting a week or two before the ban came in, in 1962, and there was a feeling then, which persists, that foreign boats, particularly Polish boats, are still drift netting for salmon.
I do not want to take as an excuse the reason that salmon are not found five, six or more miles from the Scottish shore, because our own boats, in the short time that they were drift netting, discovered that they were able to catch salmon at that distance. The Under-Secretary has said that he will answer our questions tonight. These are matters of equity, because restrictions are placed


upon our fishermen while others are unrestricted.
I can appreciate how complex and difficult are the consultations between the Secretary of State and the salmon fishing industry. One firm in my constituency presented a substantial memorandum to the Secretary of State which makes meaty reading. Obviously we must accept that the consultations will be prolonged. We should like to know what limit will be put on the consultations.
One thing which is central in the Hunter Report and in its proposals is the question whether a trap is a practicable way of fishing for salmon, because the Hunter Report stands or falls on this point. If we are to do away with fishing with net and coble in the rivers and the fixed engines on the beaches and headland, everything hinges on the question whether the trap is a practicable proposition. Salmon interests in my constituency have gone as far as Canada. In particular, they have spent a lot of time in Eire studying rivers where the trap has been used to see whether it can be used in rivers in Scotland. This firm had a feasibility study carried out by a firm of consulting engineers which has been made available to the Secretary of State. In that the question of its practicability is still very much in doubt, and the question of capital costs is very much glossed over in the Hunter Report.
Has the Secretary of State considered in this interim period carrying out an experiment with a trap in the rivers in Scotland to see whether it is practicable and what the difficulties and costs are? This would short-circuit a lot of consultations and establish whether its use was feasible. The length of time which an experiment would take obviously has close relation to the length of time that we should have to continue the ban on drift netting. It would help the industry if the Under-Secretary of State would say a few words on this point.

12.39 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: When we debated this matter last year, I made clear my views on the possibilities of paying compensation to those who had been engaging in drift netting. My opinions are still the same, and I shall not weary the House by repeating them.
It is five years since the Hunter Committee was appointed and two years approximately since it reported. A good deal of the information was probably gathered three or more years ago. If there is to be an extension of the ban on drift net fishing for the next two years, we want some assurance from the Government that they are continuing to experiment and looking into the possibilities of change in the salmon fishing industry. Unless this is done, we shall be making a decision in a year or two based on information which is very much out of date. We had the occurrence last year of the columnaris salmon disease coming from Ireland to at least one estuary on the coast of Scotland.
This is a valuable industry which employs many people in the rural districts. We are not spending enough time, energy or money on the investigations on which we should base the legislation which will have to be introduced either next year or the year after. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that the Government are not just arguing with the vested interests, but are doing something to put forward practical suggestions when the time comes to make the decisions.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I should like to join with those who have congratulated the Joint Under-Secretary on his somewhat belated appearance on the Front Bench. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I quite understand why his appearance was somewhat reticent tonight. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have had promise after promise on this matter from this Government, from the hon. Gentleman's predecessors.
I shall not quote the previous debates on this matter, but I feel bound to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to what was said on 4th February, 1965, by the former Minister of State at the Scottish Office:
I assure the House that when the Hunter Committee's Report is received, we will examine this matter again very fully and urgently ".—[OFFictia, REPORT. 4th February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1368.]
and last year, on 1st February, the previous Minister of State again said:
This is one promise I can make again this year. It will be full and urgent. I do


not think that we have wasted a great deal of time ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1034.]
While, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) said just now, I suspect that the real reason the Government have changed their mind and asked for the two-year extension on this occasion is because they want to span the promises out, to have to promise urgency every other year and not every year. I do not think that that is any excuse. I think that the proposal—if I can have the Under-Secretary's attention for a moment—to extend the Order for two years is utterly inexcusable and unjustifiable and I am quite satisfied that nothing the Under-Secretary said in introducing the Order tonight justifies an extension to two years. We should certainly, as the previous Minister of State acknowledged last year, have an opportunity to look at this extension, at the maximum, in 12 months' time. This Order is seen by a number of fishermen in Scotland, whether rightly or wrongly, as a gross injustice practised on them. I am bound to remind the Under-Secretary that this feeling has been increased by the publication of the Second Report of the Hunter Committee, because in that it was argued that all fishing for salmon in the sea should be forbidden. The situation it is now proposed to extend for two years is that one type of fishing for salmon in the sea should be forbidden, while another type should continue in operation, and this is bound to increase the feeling of resentment and injustice that these Orders have always provoked.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regaled us with his ideas about nationalisation and he used a phrase about "hapless tenants". As has been pointed out, many of those people whom I suppose the hon. Member opposite is embracing in the term "hapless tenants" are employees of commercial fisheries, and, of course, their interests have to be taken into account. That is the interest we have to consider. That is the over-riding interest, and not that of the riparian owner, at whom he aimed a few powerful jabs.
We have to consider the interests of commercial fisheries. Like some hon. Members opposite and some of my hon.

Friends, I have never been entirely convinced of the arguments the Hunter Committee put forward about the impracticability of any form of control of drift netting. I believe that the catch quota system could be made to work. Of course, it would have to be integrated in the general system of controls over salmon fishing so that the overall catch is not increased and thereby the future of fishing for salmon in Scotland as a whole is affected.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary that in the Government's consideration of the Hunter Committee's proposals concerning drift netting, for which they are now demanding another two years of consultation and consideration, they should look into the incidence of columnaris, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred, and see what effect this could have on the desirability or otherwise of the present level of catching of salmon in Scotland overall.
When we debated last year's Order, I said that I had an ugly suspicion that the Government would sit on the Hunter Committee's Report. It is now clear that it is no longer an ugly suspicion: it is a stark, blinding certainty. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) accused some of my hon. Friends of wishing to rush consideration of the Hunter Report. I do not know his definition of "rush". Nobody can accuse the Government of rushing their consideration of this Measure. It seems that they are poring and pondering over it indefinitely.
That was the indication given by the Under-Secretary in introducing the Order tonight. The only excuse that I heard him give for seeking to extend the Order for a further two years was that it would reduce uncertainty. The hon. Member does not understand the meaning of words if he believes that by extending the uncertainty for a further two years, he will reduce it. That is an absolute contradiction in terms.
I appreciate that the Hunter Report is in many ways a highly contentious document and that it has raised some fundamental problems, but I am quite unsatisfied that the Government have made a case tonight for extending the


Order for a further two years without any further submission to the House of Commons during that time. I would like the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter and produce a more effective explanation for the extension than he has done so far.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Buchan: During the debate, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said that it might be invaluable if we could have a debate on the Hunter Report. We seem to have come very close to it tonight, although the Order which we are discussing is of more limited scope.
A number of points have been covered, some of them fairly inaccurately. If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) had listened as carefully as he asked me to do to him, he would have heard me speak about reducing the annual uncertainty.
The points which have been put forward have fallen into half a dozen different categories, if we except the pyrotechnics of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), at the beginning of the debate, taking us through the ancestral voices from Antony and Cleopatra to Joan of Arc, and very correctly ending up with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). My hon. Friend's argument at the time was against the Tories, and it seems to have been forgotten throughout the debate that it was the Tories who introduced the first ban. They did so before they had the Report on which the ban was to be based. We are at least basing the two years' ban on a Report. The Tories did not.
My hon. Friend's argument was precisely the need for logicality. Now, we are in a different position. The ban exists. The question was whether we should lift the ban. We decided, I think correctly, that the argument is not sufficiently proved in terms of drift-net fishing, but there are arguments which suggest that it would be very dangerous to allow the practice to continue. One of my hon. Friends quoted some of the figures. The increase from 1960 has been as follows: in 1960, 9,000 fish were

caught, all off the Tweed; in 1961, 28,000, of which half were caught off the Tweed ; but in 1962—and this is a point to be remembered—the period when we knew the ban was coming, in that 13 months—115,000 fish were caught, and that was equivalent to about one-quarter of the total catch in 1962. It seems to be fairly clear that action had to be taken. I think the Conservative Government were correct to take action, however they did it, and however ungracious they were in not considering compensation, for it was at that point that compensation should have been considered. Nevertheless, they were correct on the statistics; we had to introduce a ban.
Now the question of delay has come up. This is probably the most complex Report which we have had to face for a very long time. The Hunter Report is an excellent Report, in some ways a brilliant Report; but one of the difficulties is this, that by the very excellence of the Report it raises problems which few of us had seen before. It had therefore, inevitably to produce generalised answers which are proving enormously difficult and complex to put into practical terms, financial terms and legal terms; that is the difficulty, and it is, therefore, correct for us to take time. After all, salmon is almost a symbol in the Highlands—sometimes almost, as one of my hon. Friends said, a symbol of vested interest—but it is certainly not to be taken lightly, and we do not intend to take it lightly. We make no apology for continuing the ban for two years because we prefer to come up with the correct answers in two years, rather than rush this through to satisfy some of the points of some hon. Members opposite. So there is no need to doubt that we are taking this question seriously; we have been taking it very seriously, and we recognise the need for time.
Somebody asked me how many discussions we have been having. We have been having a great many. I was also asked whether the submissions we talked about last year had come in time. Yes, they had come in by February, as we said in the debate last year. One result of these written submissions is that new aspects have arisen, financial, legal and practical considerations.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)


raised one of the practical points, the question to what extent research was done on the use of the trap. This is one of the questions one has to look at and there is therefore, no case for talking about delay.
The question was asked, with whom we have had discussions. The bodies are: the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Association of Scottish Salmon District Fishery Boards, the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland, the Scottish Anglers' Association, the Scottish National Angling Clubs Association, the Salmon and Trout Association, and the Fishmongers Company.
I have already briefly dealt with the question of compensation, but the first point which should be made is this: that a possible point at which compensation should have been considered was when the scheme was introduced, but unfortunately it was introduced under the Tories and they ignored it. That was the point at which it was possible to see which gear was being used for fishing, but nowadays it would be extremely difficult. The hon. Member for South Angus might bring up the new net he bought yesterday and ask for compensation—[Interruption.] No. But it is a nice thought. It is a very difficult problem.
As to whether the ban should be permanent or not, I must stress that that question has not been decided.
For all these reasons the question of compensation, regrettably, is not decided. It is regrettable to me personally. I was brought up with these fishermen. So often when we talk of fishermen we think of the fisherman with his elegant rod and line and his little picnic basket beside him, his estate car in the background. What I think of is the fishermen—I know these men—who fish because they must, and it is with very little joy that we have to keep this ban for another two years—because we must.
Another point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker). They asked about the possibility of a limited form of licensing, and a comparison was made with England. We are in a little difficulty here, because, when the hon.

Gentleman was ruled out of order in raising England, he promptly went over to Greenland. There is a distinct difference between the English and the Scottish positions. The salmon does not play such an important part in the English fishing economy, and the strict form of licensing which they use relates to the traditional form of fishing. Therefore, drifting netting was not a new development which might have had serious effects on stocks.
Everyone has looked at the possibility of licensing, from the Hunter Committee up. That Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to introduce an easy form of licensing. There are all sorts of problems involved, and it is difficult to come up with the right answer.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns asked what evidence we have of fishing by foreign boats. I think that he has in mind particularly fishing by foreign boats between the six- and the twelve-mile limits. Beyond that point, there is not much difficulty. We have looked into this, and we have found very little evidence. There are plenty of tales, but little evidence. If the fishermen had the evidence, they would be only too ready to let the enforcement cruisers know of their suspicions, but no reports have been substantiated on investigation.
In any case, the argument behind this is false. If there were foreign boats fishing, we should have no control. It seems a poor argument to say that we should not exert control where we can, because there are other aspects which are outwith our control.
I think that I have covered most of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should love to have explored the Greenland problem further. The question of tagging and research on the Greenland problem arose, and in 1965 we had a joint programme carried out at Greenland between Scottish and Danish scientists. Hon. Members may be interested to know that 223 fish were tagged, one of which was recaptured off the coast of Newfoundland in 1966. This shows that we are still working very much in the dark as regards salmon. A further exercise was carried out at Greenland last year, and in Scotland we tagged 23.000 smolts. We hope


that we shall get results when they begin to return to their home waters, as salmon always do.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Gentleman say something about the problem of columnaris which was raised by one of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Buchan: I should be very much out of order if I did. We are aware of the problem. As hon. Members know, there was evidence of it last year in the Solway and the Border Esk. There is nothing which I can usefully add at this stage, except to say that people are working very hard, despite the accusations of lack of diligence from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with two points which I raised and which he has not mentioned? I ask him about evidence of foreign boats drift-net fishing—

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman paid a little attention to what I was saying, he might have heard me deal with that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I also asked him whether the experiment of a trap was going ahead.

Mr. Buchan: This is becoming a bit much. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question about foreign boats. I also said that we were looking into the possibility of a trap. The difficulty has been to get co-operation on the right kind of river to do it. But we shall do our best to try to carry out that kind of experiment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that we still do not know enough about it, but we have had the experience of the Shannon. Though it is not entirely comparable, it is of some help.
As I say, I have already dealt with his question about foreign boats, and I have no intention of doing so again.
I made a personal reference to my own concept of a fisherman. This does not give me any particular joy. Some of my relatives have been involved in drift-net fishing, and I know the problems that they face. I hope that they will understand the reason why we have needed to extend this. It has given us little joy. We have done this because we have had to do it. We have done it,

not because we are lacking in urgency, but because investigations into the Hunter Committee Report, excellent though it is, show the ramifications and complexities of even one simple decisive action on the basis of the Report. We do not think that we can isolate these things. They have to be brought together, and the right kind of thinking should be done.
I think that a salmon is a little like a woman. It is mysterious, inscrutable, damnably expensive, and has a strong homing instinct. It is in order to preserve this homing instinct and ensure that we continue to refurbish Scottish waters that we ask the House to pass this Order.

Mr. Stodart: Before the hon. Gentleman finally sits down—I do not know whether I caught him half-way—would he give us some indication of how he foresees the immediate future with regard to consultations and discussions? Are these going on all the time? Are meetings taking place, let us say every month, every week, and so on? What does he consider is the likely timetable for the outcome of all this?

Mr. Buchan: The meetings take place as often as they are necessary, on dates mutually agreeable to the people involved. Secondly, by stretching it to two years, we hope, though I make no promises—the hon. Gentleman is too long in the tooth to accept promises anyway—to bring in legislation in that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, I hope that the House will allow me to refer to the points of order which were raised at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) with regard to the circumstances in which this Order was first moved.
The question which was raised was whether, at the time of moving this Order, the subsequent Order had in fact been moved. At that stage of the discussions my impression was that it had not been put and the voices had not been collected. There seems to have been a misunderstanding in this respect. When this Order was first called, as no Scottish Minister was present, one of the Government Whips said "Now", which had the effect of moving the Order. I was at that


time under the mistaken impression that the Government Whip was in fact moving the subsequent Order on the Order Paper relating to nationalised industries, which I am now informed it was not intended to move. I therefore was in error in putting that Question with regard to the nationalised industries, and that ought to be treated as a nullity.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) then inquired whether this Order on Sea Fisheries was to be debated. The Minister then said that he wanted to make some observations about it, and I allowed the debate to proceed. It has proceeded until now, and I think that it is now my duty to put the Question to the House.

The Question is—

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may we be quite clear about this? Do I understand that a certain item on the Order Paper after this business was in fact put, though in error? Nobody would suggest that it was not put in error. All I am asking is whether it was put and whether, therefore, the order of the timetable has been disarranged, and whether the debate that we have had has been in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am explaining to the House that I was under a misapprehension in putting the Question in respect of the Order in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I in fact put it, but I was in error in doing so because it had not been moved, or at any rate the hon. Member had not intended to move it. What he had intended to move was the earlier Order on Sea Fisheries, for which I had called Mr. Secretary Ross, who had not replied. The position is that the debate we have just had has been a regular debate, and if I was at fault in putting the subsequent Order which was not intended to be moved I must apologise to the House and ask it to treat that as a nullity.

Sir Douglas Glover: If you thought that you were calling the debate

on nationalised industries, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when in fact you were calling the debate of sea fisheries, with the greatest respect, although you may say that you apologise to the House and you may have been legitimately under a misapprehension, I honestly do not see how the House can purport to debate something which it was not debating, or to think that you had called the debate on nationalised industries and to go back on your Ruling at the time. It is not sufficient to apologise. If the House thought that it was dealing with another subject the House was dealing with that subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member was not here at the time. The House did not think it was dealing with nationalised industries. In fact, it was the hon. Member for Crosby who drew my attention to the fact that we were dealing with sea fisheries. I think the position is quite clear.

Mr. Stodart: Naturally we accept your explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your regret for your misapprehension. We accept it fully and completely, provided that you can assure us that the debate has been in order. If you can do that I would advise my hon. Friends to let the matter pass.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no hesitation in advising the House that the debate we have just had has been in order. I was anxious for the record to be clear, and I think that with the explanation I have given it will be quite clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Fitch.]

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past One o'clock.